Gun-grabbing is now infrastructure  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE has been warning that the anti-gun left-wingers will use any method, both direct and indirect, to destroy the 2^nd Amendment.  In the past, we’ve offered examples of their efforts and, unfortunately, the left keep obliging us with more and more.

Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg funds “Everytown” which, in turn, funded a publication called “The Trace”.  In “The Trace’s” newsletter, it enthusiastically reported that Joe Biden’s $2.3 billion infrastructure plan (which actually contains relatively little for infrastructure) includes a “monumental development in the world of gun violence reduction: The package calls for spending $5 billion on community-based prevention programs…it would set up the federal government’s largest outlay for anti-violence work in history”.

Of course, almost every anti-violence proposal of the left is really a Trojan Horse for more gun control and destroying 2A.  Rest assured that the root causes of violence will be ignored in the rush for more ineffective gun control.  

“The Trace” whines that many anti-gun programs operate on a shoestring.  (Since this is government funding, perhaps 2A defenders should not be as worried as government funding often goes primarily to pay the executives of government funded projects and not towards the purpose of the organization.)  But some will certainly leak out into direct anti-gun publicity and lobbying efforts; the government likes to fund groups to lobby the government for programs the government already wants. 

Biden’s excuse for including a $5 billion anti-violence investment in a so-called jobs bill — as opposed to including it in crime legislation — will probably be that violence impedes the country’s economic health.  This may not seem like radical thinking to you but it will be a radical shift in thinking for Biden and the Democrat left since they ignored the economic cost of violence in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and many other cities during 2020.  Estimates are that the riots caused $2 billion in damages but no estimate as to their economic cost. (Lost jobs for instance.  Anyone in their right mind want to open a new business in downtown Portland or Seattle?) Don’t count on the left-wing media pointing out this inconsistency; hypocrisy is not a sin when Democrats do it.

Of course, when guns are being bought at a record pace, especially by first time gun owners and women, trying to get openly anti-gun legislation passed is not good politics.  Better to bury it in a jobs bill.

"The Trace” further reported that Chico Tillmon, who it described as a veteran violence interrupter in Chicago, was in favor of the bill.  (If there was ever an example of someone who failed at their job, it’s a “Violence Interrupter” in Chicago.  This is someone worth quoting?)  

Basically, the Biden administration has opened the public trough to every radical program, and groups aimed at destroying 2A are bellying up to the trough.

Without question, the “community-based prevention programs” will study the violence issue (in studies done by 2A enemies) and conclude that the answer to violence is fewer guns and eliminating Modern Sporting Rifles, (which are misnamed for political propaganda purposes as Assault Rifles).  The studies will overlook the increasing violence in heavily Democratic cities that already have radical gun control laws and implemented bail reform to release felons.  And none of the studies will dare mention immigration or sanctuary cities since that would label them a racist.  Could Democrat governors, mayors and D.A.’s condoning the 2020 riots have encouraged violence?  Don’t expect the studies to go there.    

Contact your Republican legislators and tell them to not support this bill.  And contact your Democrat legislators and tell them they can’t slip this past you as you know what they are doing.

Young v Hawaii  by Tom Reynolds

On Tuesday, we warned that the left’s never-ending effort to destroy the 2nd Amendment would force 2A defenders to learn more about the fine points of law than we ever wanted to learn. Today, we explore another fine point.

The “Heller and McDonald” Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions of over a decade ago would seem to have decided the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended only for state militias. SCOTUS ruled it was an individual right and did not require a militia.

Since that time, the left has tried to skirt around “Heller and McDonald” and attacked 2A in new and different ways. The crux of the gun grabbers new argument is that “Heller and McDonald” only protected the right to “keep and bear arms” in the home but not in public. Many left-wing lower courts have ignored “Heller and McDonald”. As Justice Clarence Thomas has charged, the courts have treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right. SCOTUS has not taken up any gun rights cases that would clarify the situation (and slap down the lower courts).

The Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the left coast and is one step below SCOTUS. It is also the circuit court most reversed by SCOTUS. It recently ruled against “Heller and McDonald” in the case of Young v Hawaii.

In 2011, Hawaii resident George Young twice applied to his county police department for a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. The Hawaii County Police Chief concluded that Young was ineligible for a license. Young then filed a claim against Hawaii County, the State of Hawaii, and various officials. The federal district court found that sovereign immunity barred Young’s action against the state and rejected the claims against the County on the merits. Young then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where a 3-judge panel found for Young and held that Hawaii’s open-carry licensing statute was invalid because it burdened a core right to bear firearms outside of the home. Hawaii then appealed and the Ninth Circuit decided to hear the case en-banc (every judge on the circuit would hear the case rather than just the original 3‐judge panel).

Several Second Amendment groups and law professors submitted briefs discussing the original meaning of the Second Amendment and the historical practice of carrying firearms. They argued that contemporary understandings of the word “bear” was synonymous with “carry,” and that it was not limited to a military context. They also surveyed early colonial laws which showed that carrying was common and legal and discussed how individual Founders, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, carried weapons for self-protection. Their conclusion from history was that arms were borne by common people for self‐defense, and the Second Amendment protects that right.

In March, 2021 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling against Young and also limited Second Amendment rights. This ruling means that the state has the privilege of granting citizens the ability to carry firearms, not that citizens have the right to carry firearms.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, in his dissent, said: “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’ U.S. Const. amend. II. Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.”

This ruling contradicts other rulings in other circuits. It does cover all of the Ninth Circuit’s states but it is not in effect in other circuits. However, left leaning judges in those other circuits might use it for “guidance” when they rule on similar 2A cases.

Young now has the option of trying to get SCOTUS to hear his appeal. It would seem that SCOTUS would take up the case since there is a contradiction between appeals courts that needs to be settled.

There are several lessons here for gun owners and 2A defenders:

For those that wish to rely on the courts instead of the legislature to protect 2A, it should be noted that Young’s lawyers, so far, were handling his case “pro bono” (no fee was charged.) Without their pro bono it would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to go this far in the court system – and it has not yet reached SCOTUS.

Money was no issue for Hawaii to fight this as they were on the “Taxpayer’s dime”.

It has been over 10 years since Young’s original application for a license was submitted. For ten years he has been denied his constitutional right and has had to undergo ten years of stress in court.

If SCOTUS decides to hear the case, the Supreme Court has several Trump appointees and a majority who seem likely to overturn the Ninth Circuit and uphold 2A. But will we see Democrats once again call for the nuclear option on the Senate filibuster and threaten to pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices? Will we hear Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer again threaten SCOTUS with, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

“Heller” was decided about Washington D.C.’s laws but the left tried to bypass it by claiming that it only applied to D.C. and not states. “McDonald” subsequently said it applied to the states, too. So, now the left wants “Heller and McDonald” to only apply to gun ownership in homes and not in public. The left will never accept that we have the right to “keep and bear arms”. The Second Amendment seems to always be one court case away from being erased because that is one of the left’s “Holy Grails”.

The 2^nd and 4^th Amendments protect Each Other  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE has written often that the gun grabbers are continually searching for new ways, both direct and indirect, to undermine the 2^nd Amendment (2A).  These attempts force pro 2A defenders to become more knowledgeable about legal issues than most of us ever wanted to become. One such current anti-2A attempt tries to legalize the seizure of guns by invalidating the 4^th Amendment (4A).  So, put on your legal caps!

The 4^th Amendment secures “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”.  (This helps protect firearms from seizure.) To further protect that right, 4A requires a search warrant based on probable cause and, in addition, 4A requires that the warrant narrowly define what is to be searched or seized. 

The Fourth Amendment and other rights are not an absolute.  4A is interpreted as permitting a warrantless seizure or home entry when that seizure or entry is reasonably necessary to protect health or safety.  Protection of health and safety are additional police duties beyond enforcing the law.  These situations can get complex as federal and states don’t always use the same standards, but the basic idea is easy to comprehend. For instance, the police do not need a search warrant if they reasonably believe someone is about to commit suicide inside a house or the police hear someone screaming for help from inside a house.  Like a house, a car is protected by 4A but police can search your car without a warrant in some instances: if police make a traffic stop and hear someone pounding from inside the trunk for example. 

Of course, it is the less obvious cases that open the door to abuse of 4A (or not).  What if a neighbor tells the police that they have not seen an elderly neighbor in several days and the police knock on the door and get no answer?  Can they go in without a warrant?  Is it reasonable for the police to believe there is a health or safety problem? 

Also, under a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) approved exception called “Community Caretaking”, the police can search an impounded car, under certain situations. That leads us to the government’s latest attack on 2A.  

Last week, SCOTUS heard a case called Caniglia v Strom.  Caniglia and his wife had a verbal argument and she spent the night in a motel.  The morning after the argument, Caniglia’s wife called police because she thought her husband might be suicidal.  Police came and interviewed Caniglia.  He denied being suicidal but the police insisted he undergo a psychiatric exam at a hospital, from which he was quickly discharged.  But while he was at the hospital, police searched his house, without permission, and seized two handguns and refused to return them, forcing Caniglia to file a civil rights lawsuit. 

The police defended their seizure of the handguns by extending the Community Caretaking exception for cars to Caniglia’s house (SCOTUS had previously only applied it to cars.)

As might be expected, the Biden Administration’s argued for expanding the government’s ability to intrude on our rights; it said that “the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless seizure or home entry that is reasonably necessary to protect health or safety”  In addition, the Biden administration does not want to “limit the government to common law rules that applied to private citizens”.  (What a shock?  The government doesn’t want to live under the same rules as private citizens.)  Some justices seemed concerned about health and safety issues more than constitutional protections but we won’t know the result until they rule on the case, this summer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to defend 4A rights and got to the real issue, “...there was no immediate danger to the person threatening suicide and no immediate danger to the wife because the suicide person was removed to a hospital.” Nevertheless, police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.” Sotomayor also wondered if the officers could “have gone into the house and taken not just the gun but any bat, knife, anything else that in their judgment this man could have used to commit suicide?” (This is important to note.  Suicides don’t use only a gun, but the police seized only guns.  Doesn’t that seem to show that the motive was a prejudice against guns as opposed to preventing a suicide?) 

Amicus briefs echoed the concern about the government’s hidden motive being gun seizure when they said, “Expansion of the ‘community caretaking’ exception into the home will be used by police in jurisdictions with onerous or constitutionally-questionable firearm restrictions to turn every call to a house into a search for guns under the pretext of ‘helping’ those present”.

There were other legal and common law issues that were argued before SCOTUS which may influence the decision.  But we have already seen a continued erosion of our rights and we will be entering new and more dangerous territory if SCOTUS gives the government another excuse to dismantle 2A.  The 4^th Amendment helps protect the 2^nd Amendment, and vice versa.

Yesterday  by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday morning, SCOPE distributed an email about Communist China’s growing influence over the America’s economy and how it would leverage that power to change American laws and policy.  We used as examples Chinas treatment of the Uighers and China’s use of reeducation camps, which have been labeled Crimes Against Humanity.

Yesterday evening, Breitbart Business Digest distributed the following news release.

“Chinese state media outlets, the nation’s Foreign Ministry, and Communist Party-controlled social media launched a multi-pronged attack Wednesday against Nike in retaliation for the company saying it does not use cotton sourced from Xinjiang, a region where the U.S. government says workers are enslaved within China’s so-called “re-education” camps. Chinese “netizens” — social media users whose posts the government approves — are posting photos and videos on the government-controlled social media site Weibo of people throwing out or burning Nike products. Shares of Nike sold off on Thursday, falling 3.44 percent to $128.44, the lowest level in four months.”

“It was a powerful demonstration of the might of the Chinese consumer army and a warning about U.S. policies directed at "opening" the Chinese market. The more U.S. companies are exposed to China's giant consumer base, the more influence China's regime will have over those companies. This is cancel culture on the world stage.”

The point of yesterday’s email emphasized that gun owners cannot ignore economics and politics just because they don’t like economics and politics.  Politics and economics are coming for gun owners (and lots of other American values and traditions).  Whether or not you like Nike, this was a timely demonstration of the growing power of a Chinese government.  A government that will enslave its own people will not hesitate to trample on other people’s rights if it benefits the Chinese Communists.

We have already seen many major American companies attack 2A without any prompting from China.  It will get worse once China starts using its influence.

Gun owners had better start voting and getting active in electing politicians who believe in the 2^nd Amendment and will have the backbone to follow through on those beliefs when China uses its economic influence to attack 2A.

It’s all related  by Tom Reynolds

Many gun owners refuse to get politically involved. There are a lot of excuses for not getting involved; one is that the gun owners do not see the threats to the 2^nd Amendment as personally affecting them.  But HR 127 should bring reality back to all gun owners.  This proposed bill would make an $800 insurance policy premium mandatory for all gun owners.  In addition, all gun owners would need to take – and pay for – a mental health evaluation.  That’s right, all gun owners. Do you already own a gun?  You’re included!  Do you only have a pump action shotgun for hunting?  You’re included!  Have an already licensed handgun you only keep in the house for protection?  You’re included!

Some other gun owners, who are involved with 2A defense, are willing to talk about 2A, but they don’t want to talk about other politics.  A mistake.  It’s all politics.  It’s all related.

Ever heard of the Uighurs?  They are a nomadic, Turkic people in northwest China.  In the name of protecting China from domestic terrorism, a million Uighurs have been detained, without criminal charges, and put in “reeducation” camps.  The US State Department, under President Trump, called it genocide.   Others cite enough evidence to call it Crimes against Humanity. 

Have I turned off a lot of gun owners who say, “So what?  It’s China.  It doesn’t concern me what China does to its own citizens”.  But it should. 

Many Democrats – without any prompting from China - are calling for reeducation of Trump supporters in addition to a hiring ban on former members of the Trump administration. Have you heard about the threat of domestic terrorism and the number one domestic terrorism threat being racist white Trump supporters?  Substitute Uighurs for white people and Trump supporters.

By-the-way, the Uighurs don’t have guns.

How about the politics of economics?  Smithfield Foods was acquired by China’s biggest meat processor, Shuanghui International Holdings, in the largest acquisition ever of a U.S. company by a Chinese one.  The Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group built a $100 million plant in Thomasville, Alabama.  These last two are examples of an economic strategy that China is employing to gain control of countries around the world - and in the U.S.A. 

Lots of gun owners, who bothered to read this far, are probably saying, “Big deal.  It’s too bad that New York’s governor and the new President aren’t as interested in American economic development as the Chinese are”.   But here is the “kicker”.  All major Chinese owned companies are directly or indirectly controlled by the Chinese government.  The same Chinese government that will imprison a million of its own Chinese citizens is increasing its economic influence over America and is moving to eventually have the ability to instantly destroy millions of American jobs.  What happens if, for political purposes, China threatens to close one or more major companies in the USA?  American employees will scream at their state and federal legislators to do something.  Jobs will be lost!  Lives destroyed!  China will counteroffer to keep the businesses open if the state and federal government make a few changes; let’s say, for instance…stop enforcing those pesky 1^st and 2^nd Amendments.  That’s not a big deal to many American politicians, since they don’t really believe in them, anyway. 

Just my imagination?  Can’t happen here?  China is using its economic might for political purposes to dominate many countries. 

Private gun ownership exists in the U.S. for many reasons, but one of the biggest is as a defense against tyranny.  The Chinese government epitomizes tyranny.  Since the communists gained control of China over 70 years ago, the Chinese communists have murdered somewhere between 40 million and 160 million of its own people.  (Estimates vary because, as should be understood, the communists are not eager to supply good statistics on this subject.)  A government that kills tens of millions of its own people will not hesitate to trample on the rights of other countries.  The Chinese communists don’t want to go to war to take over, they just need to have a major impact on our economy. China would like to give Americans a choice: we can keep our jobs or our guns, but not both.

Mandatory Liability Insurance  by Tom Reynolds

As SCOPE has stressed, the gun grabbers continue both direct and indirect threats to the 2^nd Amendment.  They view anything that would potentially destroy 2A, as worth their efforts.  Currently in vogue is a push to require all gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance. Gun grabbers want to make owning a gun unaffordable for many current and potential gun owners.  Bills have been introduced at both the federal and state level to make this mandatory for all gun owners.  For instance, HR127 would require all gun owners to buy an insurance policy with an $800 annual premium.  (It is unknown how this insurance will be accomplished since some states, like New York, make it difficult to impossible to have gun liability insurance. But, since the $800 premium is a part of the proposed bill, the federal government will undoubtedly be involved.)

The question that is not being asked is: why have liability insurance?  It seems as if that would be easy to answer, since we have insurance for almost everything else.  But, it’s not so easy to answer when we look deeper.

As it is generally understood, liability insurance helps cover the cost of claims when the insured is responsible for bodily injury, property damage, etc.  But for someone to be responsible, they must be negligent, among other requirements.  (Legal papers abound on this subject, but for our purposes, we can keep it simple and focus on the insured’s negligence.) 

2017 was a peak year for deaths by shooting with 39,773, per the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  The FBI reported similar numbers.  So, let’s use 2017 CDC’s numbers to better understand the need (or not) for mandatory insurance.

There were 39,773 firearm deaths in 2017.  Of those, 23,854 were by suicide.  Is there any need for liability insurance in a suicide?  Not if the insured is the one committing suicide.  (Dead persons can’t sue themselves for bodily injury.)  The most often time that insurance could come into play is if the suicide used a gun belonging to someone else and that other person negligently allowed the suicide to use the gun.  I’ll bet, in those cases where the gun belonged to someone else, it was a family member.   Are other family members going to sue the family member gun owner?  (Won’t that make family Thanksgiving dinner a little dicey!) 

In summary, there would be very few times when liability insurance would possibly be used in suicides.

There were 14,542 murders in that year.  Historically, 92% to 94% of murders are done with unlawful firearms.  Obviously, unlawful firearm users will not have liability insurance.  If 8% of murders were committed by lawful gun owners, that would be 1,163 instances when liability insurance would potentially be in effect.  But wait a minute - insurance policies usually do not cover unlawful acts.  Murders are the very definition of an unlawful act.  So, even if those 1,163 murderers were covered by insurance, the insurance company would not have to pay.  (Murderers would have wasted their premium money.)

553 additional deaths were by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO’s).   They are covered by their department’s (or possibly union’s) insurance so they have no need for mandatory individual liability insurance coverage although some might also take out individual policies. 

Another 824 deaths were unintentional or “other”:  Hunting accidents, gun cleaning accidents, personal protection, etc.  Here, there might be a need for liability insurance coverage.

In summary, as to deaths by firearms in 2017, there were 824 unintentional deaths and some small unknown number of suicides where liability insurance would come into play.  Estimates are that there are 80 million to 100 million legal gun owners in the USA.  That’s about 1 in 100,000 gun owners that would have a use for liability insurance.  But that would be $80 billion in insurance premiums. (You are probably wondering what similar numbers are for car drivers and accidents?  240 million drivers have about 6 million accidents: 1 in 40)

Liability insurance would also cover instances where someone was shot but did not die or property was damaged.  The above categories would still be applicable:

•     Most attempted suicides by firearm are fatal.  Of those few non-fatal suicide attempts, even fewer would involve a borrowed or stolen gun.

•     Attempted murders are just as illegal as murders so there would be no insurance coverage.

•     Non- fatal shootings by LEO’s would fall under the department’s general insurance policy.

•     That leaves unintentional and “other” instances of non-fatal shootings.  Since statistical studies focus on murders, this is an unknown number.  Probably not a big enough number radically effect the 1 in 100,000 ratio. 

What cannot be estimated is the effect of having a big pot of insurance money available.  Will enterprising lawyers attempt some new, unforeseen strategies to raid the insurance pot-of-gold?  (You can bet on it.)  Even without insurance being an issue, we have seen instances where a criminal sues someone for shooting them, even though the criminal was committing a crime at the time of the shooting.   (With a pot of money available, this would certainly increase.)

The proposed bills do not specify the coverage that would be mandated.  The above narrative deals with what is generally called liability insurance.  (The “Swamp” will decide specific coverage after the bill is passed.)  This narrative does not deal with other types of policies that may be currently available, such as Concealed Carry Insurance. But it is almost certain that the mandated coverage would be different from Concealed Carry insurance.

So, the question is: with so little need for liability insurance, why mandate it? And the answer is: to make gun ownership unaffordable to most people.

By-the-way, there are other proposed bills (HR8 for example) mandating that all firearms transfers/loans must undergo a NICS check.  If that bill and the insurance bill both passed into laws, would the person to whom the gun is loaned also need to pay an $800 premium for insurance?  (You can bet on it!)

End Cuomo’s Emergency Powers  by Tom Reynolds

Andrew Cuomo was given emergency powers by the state’s legislatures and, under the false claim of curtailing those powers, the legislatures have actually extended them.  This should be a concern for all Second Amendment advocates since Cuomo is no friend of 2A and is infamous for using the governor’s powers to bully people that disagree with him - and those that defend 2A are definitely in disagreement with him.  Both the federal and state constitutions are based on the division of powers between the legislative and executive branches and ceding legislative powers to the governor seems to be an abrogation of the legislatures’ constitutional duties and a potential danger to every citizen’s rights, especially those rights protected by the 2^nd Amendment.   

In the past, SCOPE has expressed concern about Cuomo misusing his emergency powers, so we asked state Senator Pam Helming for an update on the current situation with Cuomo’s emergency powers and the latest accusations of sexual misconduct by him.  About the emergency powers she told us, “It is long past time to end the Governor’s emergency powers and for him to leave office. He has shattered whatever was left of the public’s trust… My bill to repeal the Governor’s emergency powers has been brought to the Senate floor more than 20 times. Each time it has been rejected by Senate Democrats.”

The Democrats had previously stood solidly in support of Cuomo but that wall may be crumbling.  Helming added, “After a secret Democratic meeting and a shocking admission by the Governor’s top aide became public, 14 Democratic Senators were motivated to voice their support for ending these powers.”

The governor’s emergency powers would probably be intact and not under attack if it were not for the disclosure of lies and misrepresentation about Covid deaths in nursing homes and allegations of sexual misconduct.  While these do not directly affect the 2^nd Amendment, they may have the side effect of distracting him (and the legislature) from further attacks on 2A.  So, we need to closely watch their progress.  Concerning them, Senator Helming said, “Do we need a full and independent investigation into the actions of Governor Cuomo and his administration? Yes…While the impeachment process moves forward, the Legislature needs to do its job and remove his powers. The Governor has failed New York, shredded the State Constitution and trampled on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and every citizen of this state.”

Senator Helming continued, “Despite more than 15,000 seniors in nursing homes and long-term care facilities who have died from COVID-19 and mounting allegations of sexual harassment… Despite serious questions about state policies and the Department of Health’s oversight into the care of our elderly citizens… Despite thousands of businesses being forced to shut their doors… The Legislature has still not acted… Does the state government – Legislature and Executive – have the responsibility to respond to this crisis with policies and solutions that will protect our seniors? Yes.”

Helming concluded by pointing out that the Governor admitted that his administration “made a mistake” by not providing a fuller account of nursing home deaths in a timely manner when he said, “We should have provided more information faster.” 

Curtailing Cuomo’s emergency powers may become a secondary issue as many prominent Democrats have called for his resignation.  State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins has called for Cuomo’s resignation.  Last Thursday, state Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said he's cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee to start investigating the governor, for possible impeachment charges. Last Friday, the federal senators from New York, Schumer and Gillibrand, both called for Cuomo to resign.  So far, Cuomo has refused to resign.

It should be noted that when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, he gave as a reason that he had lost the confidence of Congress.  Cuomo seems to have lost the confidence of the New York State legislatures.  Will he follow Nixon’s example and resign?  Although his possible successor, Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, is probably no friend of 2A, it is hard to imagine she could be less of a friend to 2A than Cuomo.

CCP’s Best Friend in the Senate  by Tom Reynolds

You may remember that California Senator Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spy on her staff for twenty years and then let him retire on your tax dollars, after it came to light.  She has continued her support of CCP goals by trying to further disarm Americans.  She and her House of Representatives cosponsor, Rhode Island Representative David Cicilline, have introduced bills that expand the list of banned Modern Sporting Weapons.

The bill is called the “Assault Weapons ban of 2021”.  It’s so new that it does not yet have a bill number.

It also bans magazines with a capacity of more than ten (10) rounds.  (Luckily, the magazine ban won’t further infringe on New Yorkers’ gun rights since there is already a state ban on those magazines.  Sarcasm intended.)

In support of her bill, Feinstein praises the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons ban which was not renewed because it was ineffective.

The following list of banned weapons is taken straight from her bill.  It’s a long list.

A banned semiautomatic assault rifle now includes all of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

All AK types, including the following:

•         AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms, LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM.
•        IZHMASH Saiga AK.
•         MAADI AK47 and ARM.
•         Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S.
•         Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS.
•         SKS with a detachable magazine.

All AR types, including the following:

•         AR 25, AR–15,
•         Alexander Arms Overmatch Plus 16
•         Armalite M15 22LR Carbine,
•         Armalite M15–T,
•         Barrett REC7,
•         Beretta AR–70. 
•         Black Rain Ordnance Recon Scout,
•         Bushmaster ACR,
•         Bushmaster Carbon 15,
•         Bushmaster MOE series,
•         Bushmaster XM15,
•         Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles,
•         Colt Match Target rifles,
•         CORE Rifle Systems CORE 15 rifles,
•         Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles,
•         Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles,
•         Diamondback DB15 rifles,
•         DoubleStar AR rifles,
•         DPMS Tactical rifles,
•         DSA Inc. ZM–4 Carbine,
•         Heckler & Koch MR556,
•         High Standard HSA–15 rifles,
•         Jesse James Nomad AR–15,
•         Knight’s Armament SR–15,
•         Lancer L15 rifles, 
•         MGI Hydra Series rifles,
•         Mossberg MMR Tactical rifles,
•         Noreen Firearms BN 36 rifle,
•         Olympic Arms,
•         POF USA P415,
•         Precision Firearms AR rifles,
•          Remington R–15 rifles,
•         Rhino Arms AR rifles,
•         Rock River Arms LAR-15,
•         Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles and MCX rifles,
•         Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles,
•         Stag Arms AR rifles,
•         Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 and AR–556 rifles,
•         Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 rifles,
•         Windham Weaponry AR rifles,
•         WMD Guns Big Beast,
•         Yankee Hill Machine Company inc. YMH-15 rifles,

Barrett M107A1,

Barrett M82A1,

Beretta CX4 Storm,

Calico Liberty Series,

CETME Sporter,

Daewoo K–1 and K–2 and Max 1 and Max 2 and AR 100 and AR 110C,

Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 17 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000,

Feather Industries AT–9,

Galil Model AR and Model ARM,

Hi-Point Carbine,

HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1, and HK USC,

IWI TAVOR, Galil ACE rifle,

Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU–16, and 25 RFB,

SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, Sig Sauer SG 551, and SIG MCX,

Springfield Armory SAR–48,

Steyr AUG,

Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF,

All Thompson rifles, including the 8 following:

•         Thompson M1SB,
•         Thompson T1100D,
•         Thompson T150D, Thompson T1,
•         Thompson T1B100D,
•         Thompson T1B50D,
•         Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C,
•         Thompson T1D,
•         Thompson T1SB,
•         Thompson T5,
•         Thompson T5100D,
•         Thompson
•         TM1,
•         Thompson TM1C.

Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, UMAREX UZI rifle,

UZI Mini UZI Model B Carbine,

Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78,

Vector Arms UZI Type,

Weaver Arms Nighthawk,

Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine

All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

All AK types, including the following:

•         Centurion 39 AK pistol,
•        CZ Scorpion pistol,
•        Draco AK–47 pistol,
•         HCR AK–47 pistol,
•         IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol,
•         Krinkov pistol,
•         Mini Draco AK–47 pistol,
•         PAP M92 pistol,
•         Yugo Krebs Krink pistol,

All AR types, including the following:

•         American Spirit AR–15 pistol,
•         Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol,
•         Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol 22 GEN II,
•         CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol,
•         Daniel Defense MK18 pistol,
•         DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol,
•         DPMS AR–15 pistol,
•         Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol,
•         Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol,
•         Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol,
•         POF USA AR pistols,
•         Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol,
•         Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol,
•         Calico pistols,
•         DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol,
•         Encom MP–9 and MP–45,
•         Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol,
•         Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, 19 TEC–9, and TEC–DC9,
•         IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol
•         Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol,

All MAC types, including the following:

•         MAC–10,
•         MAC–11,
•         Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical 4 Pistol, MPA Mini Tactical Pisto,l
•         Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11
•         Velocity Arms VMAC,
•         Sig Sauer P556 pistol
•         Sites Spectre
•         All Thompson types, including the 11 following:
•         Thompson TA510D,
•         Thompson TA5,

All UZI types, including Micro-UZI,

All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

DERYA Anakon MC–1980, Anakon 19 SD12,

Doruk Lethal shotguns,

Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12

All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:

•         IZHMASH Saiga 12
•         IZHMASH Saiga 12S
•         IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01
•         IZHMASH Saiga 12K
•         IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030
•         IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika

Streetsweeper,

Striker 12

All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

The title of this article identifies Feinstein as the CCP’s best friend in the Senate.  That specification is necessary since the CCP’s best friend in the House is California Congressman Eric Swalwell who was sleeping with a CCP spy.  He is now on the House Intelligence Committee and was a House Manager in the Trump Impeachment trial.  (At least his spy isn’t retired on the taxpayers’ dime, she fled back to China when discovered.)

HR 8  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE recently published a list of gun related bills in the House and Senate, with a brief description of each.  HR 8, in the House of Representatives, deserves an expanded explanation.

It is important to note that it covers all firearms, not just handguns. 

Under HR8, any transfer, loan or sale of a firearm will have to go through a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) with all the associated paperwork and costs.  There are a few exceptions to the bill’s mandate to use an FFL but they fall far short of easing the pain of this bill on gun owners.  To the casual reader, the bill might not seem too extreme but to a knowledgeable gun owner it is extreme and includes many paths to making a law-abiding gun owner into a felon.

As might be expected, the bill seems to be written by legislators who are not familiar with firearms and have probably never been hunting.  The bill’s authors’ understanding of dangerous situations seems to have come from watching TV shows.

HR8 changes the law, through the backdoor, and no one under 21 will be able to legally possess a handgun. Since 1968, existing federal law says FFL’s cannot sell handguns to people under 21, but younger persons can possess handguns that are borrowed or transferred.  Under HR8, all transfers must go through an FFL.  That’s the “Catch 22”; FFL’s cannot legally transfer a handgun to people under 21.  (Gang members like MS-13 and other youthful criminals exempt themselves from this law.)

Under HR8, you do not have to use an FFL for loans and gifts between HR8 defined close family members*. (Sons in-law or daughters in-law, cousins of any kind, and step brothers or sisters are not HR8 defined close family members* and you cannot loan or gift them a firearm without going through an FFL).   

If you trade a firearm to an HR8 defined close family member*, without going through an FFL, you are as much a felon as if you gave the gun to Charles Manson, (and subject to the same level of penalty). For example, you can’t give your adult son a shotgun to thank him for doing some work on your house, that’s a trade.

You do not have to use an FFL to lend a firearm to someone to hunt, but you must accompany them and never leave their side.  If you leave their side, you become a felon.

You do not have to use an FFL to lend someone a gun to shoot at a shooting range, but you must never leave their side or you are a felon.  If you practice shooting at a non-shooting range, such as a farm, and hand someone a firearm, that transfer would be a felony.  (You farmers who want to teach your family to shoot will have to take them to a firing range and not to the “north forty”.)   

One constantly overlooked aspect of gun ownership is crime prevention.  Do you have any reason to believe your life may be in danger: being stalked; domestic violence victim; live in a dangerous area; lots of burglaries in your area? If so, you might want to borrow a gun, in advance of the crime, for prevention and protection. Under HR8, you cannot borrow a firearm, in advance, from someone other than an HR8 defined close family member*.  Once there is imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, you can borrow one from someone else.  Unfortunately, criminals don’t schedule their crimes with the victims so you have to wait until the crime is in process to borrow it from a friend.  (Good luck with that.)   

Suppose you want to legally loan a firearm and you are willing to endure the paperwork and cost to comply with HR8 and go through an FFL.  When the gun is returned, you have to go through the same paperwork and cost to return the firearm to its owner.  Under HR8, the return of a firearm that was loaned is treated the same as the purchase of a new one.  

The gun grabbers have generally not been successful in direct attacks on the 2^nd Amendment but they never stop with indirect attacks that make it more difficult to own a gun.  One way is to make it unaffordable or overly bureaucratic for most people to own or, in the case of HR8, borrow a gun.  Other bills being proposed add costs for insurance policies and mental health exams.  Taken as a whole, these bills would make gun ownership and hunting into rich person’s sports – which is exactly their goal.

Contact your Congressperson and tell them to oppose HR8. 

Contact your local Rod and Gun Club and also your local Conservation Society and be sure they understand the implications of this bill. 

*HR8 defined close family members are: spouses, domestic partners, parents and children, step-parents and step-children, siblings, aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews, grandparents and grandchildren.

- Find the full text of the bill  Here -

One Man One Vote  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE previously wrote about New York counties seceding from NY and joining Pennsylvania.  Another alternative solution (besides Divide NY and the status quo) might be to overturn the Warren Court’s wrongful ruling that established the “one man one vote” principle.    

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the most liberal SCOTUS the USA has ever had – and, hopefully, ever will.  Many of the divisive issues we face today are directly related to rulings during Warren’s reign. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II accused the Warren Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process. 

One of the Warren Court’s worst decisions was Reynolds v Sims, which ignored the Constitution in order to remove political power from conservative rural areas and give it to liberal cities; it’s known as “one man one vote”.  

•  In 1946, before Warren’s appointment to SCOTUS, in Colegrove v. Green the court continued its long-standing position that legislative apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should not intrude.  

•  In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Warren Court ignored the court’s precedent and forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.

•  In 1964, citing the Baker case as a precedent, the Warren Court held in Reynolds v Sims that both houses of bicameral legislatures had to be apportioned according to population. This is known as “one man one vote”. 

• The power to make laws is vested in our elected representatives in the House and Senate, not in a vote by the people (Article I Section 1). And each state has two Senators, no matter what the population (Article 1 Section 3 and Amendment XVII).

• One person, the President, has the executive power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I).

• The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I).  Under states’ laws, almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes. 

• In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)

• Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”.  The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2).  Six states are below the average representation.

• Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.
• As a result of Reynolds v Sims, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing the political power to shift from rural to urban areas.

Every issue must be viewed in context; statements can mean very different things when taken out of context.  The US Constitution set up the rules and overall framework for how the federal government would operate, but it also had a second purpose; to protect ”We the people” from the tyranny of the majority.  Every part of the Constitution should be interpreted within the context of protecting “We the people” from the tyranny of the majority.  “One man one vote” goes against that principle.

The Constitution has many examples that contradict “one man one vote: 

• One person, the President, has the executive power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I).
  
  
• The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I).  Under states’ laws, almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes. 
  
  
• In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)
  
  
• Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”.  The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2). Six states are below the average representation.
  
  
• Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.
• 
  
• Why is it important to show that our Constitution is not in any way based on one man one vote?  Currently, New York has a bicameral (two house) legislature where both houses are based on an equal percentage of the population.  What if, instead of “one man one vote”, the NY State Senate was apportioned by each county having one Senator, no matter what the population was of the county?  Rural counties would then have a voice that is currently denied them because of NY City’s overwhelming population.  In NY State, the principle of “one man one vote” effectively means that people in rural counties have no vote.  Rural counties are subject to the tyranny of the majority.
  

Stare decisis is a legal principle where courts rarely go against principles established in previous rulings.  (Unless of course you are a liberal court, then the only principle that matters is your current political position.)  Liberals respect stare decisis only when it works in their favor.  The Warren Court frequently ignored Stare Decisis.  Unfortunately, Stare Decisis also protects bad rulings as we have seen with “one man one vote”.

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article 2 Section 2); they are not elected.  (Another example that goes against “one man one vote”.)  2^nd Amendment defenders face an extremely grave time after Democrats won both races in Georgia.  The Senate could run rampant in approving far left judges who will make political rulings, such as the Warren Court made, instead of judgments based on the Constitution.  Elections have consequences and we need to ensure that future Presidents and Senates only appoint conservative judges who believe in the rule of law. 

Perhaps, someday, we will have judges who recognize that “one man one vote” was another constitutional aberration of the Warren Court and needs to be overturned.  That would overcome the tyranny of the majority that is now the rule of law in NY State and give gun owners and Upstate NY a voice in their government that is currently denied.