Federal Gun Registry History  by Tom Reynolds

It is often stated that the federal government is prohibited from maintaining a gun registry.  Here is a short history of the federal gun registry prohibitions to which you can refer, to get good information.

Congressional Research Service serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.  On March 4, 2022 it released a report (*) which is the basis for the following.

Four provisions of current federal law prohibit a national registry of most, but not all, modern firearms.

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA)

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the ATF is the principal agency that administers and enforces the NFA

Under the NFA, certain firearms deemed to be particularly dangerous are more highly regulated. (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers/suppressors.)

ATF maintains a centralized registry of NFA-regulated firearms (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers) that are held privately by unlicensed persons and publicly by nonfederal law enforcement agencies.

For 34 years, FY1979 through FY2012, Congress attached a proviso to the annual ATF appropriations that blocked any proposed rule, that would have required FFLs to submit quarterly reports on firearms sales and dispositions. 

For FY2012, the word of futurity (“hereafter”) was included in this, which indicates it intended the prohibition on these quarterly FFL reports to be permanent law (H.Rept. 112-284, p. 240). (**)

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the ATF is the principal agency that administers and enforces GCA; however, the FBI administers the GCA background check provisions.

The GCA requires anyone who engages in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms to be licensed federally. These licensees are known collectively as Federal Firearms Licensees. (FFL)

All modern firearms are regulated under the GCA if they are based on post-1898 designs and are capable of accepting self-contained, commercially available ammunition.  In addition, certain devices (e.g., silencers / suppressors) also fall under the GCA definition of “firearm.”

For nine years, FY2004 through FY2012, Congress included a general provision in the annual DOJ appropriations bill that required the FBI to destroy background check records within 24 hours on persons who are found eligible to receive and possess firearms. This provision was crafted because a 90-day NICS audit log was maintained by the FBI during the Clinton Administration.

For FY2012, Congress inserted a word of futurity (“hereafter”) in this provision, which indicates it intended for the 24-hour destruction requirement to be permanent law. (***)

Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), 1986 Under 18 U.S.C. §926,

The Attorney General is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations necessary to carry out the GCA. Section 6 of FOPA amended §926 to prohibit a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.( ****)

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993

Congress amended the GCA and required FFLs to initiate a background check on any prospective unlicensed customer seeking to acquire a firearm from them through a sale, trade, or redemption of firearms exchanged for collateral (18 U.S.C. §922(t)). The FBI facilitates these background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Subsection 103(i) of the Brady Act prohibits the establishment of a registration system of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions with any records generated by NICS, except for records on persons found ineligible to receive or possess firearms.(*****)

Notes:

(*) Link to actual report     3 (congress.gov)

(**) “Provided, That no funds appropriated herein or hereafter shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by [F]ederal firearms licensees. (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, P.L. 112-55, November 18, 2011, 125 Stat. 552, 609.

(***)Hereafter, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for—(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code; and (2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, that does not require and result in the destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law

(****) No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [Attorney General’s] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. (P.L. 99-308, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 449, 459.)

(*****) No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may—(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

S04150  by John Elwood

In 2022, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a New York law on who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public by ruling that the New York law was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court ruled the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 

The Constitution never seems to stop Governor Hochul. 

Eight days later, on July 1, 2023 New York State Governor Hochul signed into law the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).  Significant provisions of the CCIA includes an ammunition background check (backdoor registration) prior to the purchase of ammunition, a fee of $2.50 for each purchase of ammunition, as well as a $9.00 fee for any purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun. 

And the anti-2A Left never stops.

On November 29, 2023, Democrats in the United States Congress, led by Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), Mark Kelly (D -Arizona), Michael Bennett (D-Colorado), and Angus King (I-Maine), introduced the most sweeping list of gun prohibitions in the 21^st century, including prohibiting nearly all semi-automatic handguns.  The bill labelled the “Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act (GOSAFE) will require all semi-automatic rifles above .22 caliber to have a permanently affixed magazine capacity of 10 rounds or fewer while outlawing magazines of higher capacity.  Further, the bill requires government approval of any future semi-automatic firearm design before production occurs.  Finally, the bill will also ban build-it-yourself ghost gun kits.

In 2024, New York State Democrats will continue their goal of gun control by bringing forth an avalanche of gun control bills to the New York State Legislature. In 2023, they included: A03314; S02978; S01701/A07885; S07364/A07489; S00930/A01566; A00754, A00442; S07365; A05049/S02635; and S04150. 

S04150 is a particularly egregious bill.  S04150 requires limiting the acquisition of a rifle, or shotgun to one every ninety-day period.  S04150 was introduced on February 23, 2023 and was sent to the consumer protection committee.  Provisions of S04150 do not apply to police officers, and would take effect 180 days after signed into law by the New York State Governor.  The bill states a violation of S04150 is a class A misdemeanor. 

Class A misdemeanors are the most serious type of misdemeanor.  Someone can be punished for a class A misdemeanor is up to 1 year in jail.  Additional penalties include fines, community service, three (3) years’ probation, and driver’s license suspension.  If convicted of a misdemeanor, it can stay on your record forever, but a 2017 New York State bill allows for the sealing of one misdemeanor conviction under certain circumstances.   

S04150 is partisan bill sponsored by State Senator James Sanders, a Democrat from New York City (district 10 - Queens).  (There is no corresponding SCOPE chapter to Senator Sanders’ district.)  Currently, he is the chairman of the NY State Senate Committee on Banks.  An attempt was made to ask Senator Sanders why he feels there is a need for this bill, and what is his source research document, but the Senator did not respond to this author’s inquiry.

Obviously, Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) OPPOSES S04150.

It seems like democrats from New York City are in competition with each other to determine who can create the most draconian firearm legislation, and impose it on New York State citizens.  The good news is there is no SAME AS bill for S04150, meaning there is no corresponding Assembly bill working through the Assembly at the same time S04150 works through the New York State Senate.  However, gunowners (SCOPE) cannot rely that a corresponding Assembly bill does not appear in 2024. 

I continually hear there are 4 to 5 million-gun owners in New York and if NY State gunowners all voted we would not be in danger of losing our Second Amendment rights. 

OK, we all agree Second Amendment restrictions are unconstitutional, but how do we fight back?  SCOPE is, “A Second Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!”   SCOPE’s mission statement states we accomplish our mission by, “Tirelessly making every effort to educate anti-gun politicians, and publicly speaking and debating gun issues with anti-gun organizations”.  Ask yourself, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?  I’m not just talking about SCOPE board members, but ALL SCOPE members. 

If ALL SCOPE members aren’t actively writing and calling your legislator to OPPOSE S04150, we are not doing enough!   If we are not voting because we think these restrictive gun laws won’t affect us, we are WRONG and we aren’t doing enough!  If we are not educating ourself on gun laws, and then debating anti-gun organizations, we are not doing enough! 

SCOPE is trying to synchronize its efforts with other Second Amendment organizations and making donations to help fund a lawsuit against violations of the Second Amendment.  But it won’t be enough until we have stopped this flood of anti-2^nd Amendment legislation and that will require members to act individually as well as a part of SCOPE.

OPPOSE S04150!

2^nd Circuit Decision

Last week, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a decision on several 2nd Amendment cases.  The decisions are lengthy and will, no doubt, get numerous follow up legal opinions and will certainly be appealed.  Below is a non-lawyer’s update, pending more detailed analysis.

First, a brief history.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, struck down New York State’s restrictive concealed carry law.

New York (and other blue states) immediately began attempting to work around the ruling, which resulted in New York passing its new Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) - only eight days after the Court’s ruling.  (Not a lot of time for public debate or deep constitutional consideration going into it.)

Numerous lawsuits were filed to declare CCIA to be unconstitutional and were initially heard in lower courts.

While the actual cases are being decided, a subset of requests were filed for restraining orders to stop enforcement of CCIA.  These do not request a decision on the lawsuits themselves but only to stop enforcement of the new law’s while the cases are being decided.

The lawsuits and requests for restraining orders were heard in lower federal courts with mixed decisions, although many were favorable to gun rights advocates.  These decisions were then appealed to the federal 2nd Circuit.   

Five cases for Restraining Orders to stop enforcement of CCIA were heard in tandem at the Second Circuit on March 20th.

Antonyuk II v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA on almost everything on 2nd & 1st Amendments issues

Christian v Nigrelli, challenges CCIA rules about Concealed Carry on private property (NY Penal Law 265.01-d)

Hardaway v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA’s rules about Concealed Carry in houses of worship as a 2nd Amendment violation.

Spencer v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA’s rules about Concealed Carry in houses of worship as a 1st Amendment violation

Gazzola v. Hochul, challenges a multitude of CCIA’s Federal Firearms Licensee rules

Because of the lawsuits, Governor Hochul and the legislature saw several undefendable weaknesses in CCIA and changed a few parts of CCIA this past spring.  This is a common tactic of the left in order to moot parts or all of the lawsuits against them.  Basically, it was a small victory for gun rights advocates.  

See this link for more detail on those changes: https://scopeny2a.org/Briefings/13195733

Decision  of the 2^nd Circuit
The part of the Gazzola decision that is a victory for 2nd Amendment advocates reinforces the link between 2nd Amendment rights and access to dealers who sell firearms; having access to acquiring firearms is an essential part of ‘keep and bear arms.’ As attorney Paloma Capanna put it, “dealers in firearms are essential to the individual exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

In spite of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) direction to the Second Circuit to expedite the appeals, we waited 9 months for a decision on the restraining orders.  It’s a mixed bag of decisions that favored both sides with the ANTI-2nd Amendment advocates winning the majority.  The decisions will require more in-depth legal examination and, in any case, they will certainly be appealed.

The decision was made by three members of the 2nd Circuit Court and the decisions may be appealed to the full 2nd Circuit Court or to SCOTUS.  This could follow many paths and will certainly take much more time.  Meanwhile, this current decision of the 2nd Circuit as to injunctions will stay in place.

There were two decisions:

a 261 page decision that covered Antonyuk, Christian, Hardaway and Spencer;

a 36 page decision that covered Gazzola.

Gazzola dealt with Federal Firearms licensees (FFL) while the other four cases dealt with other parts of CCIA and sometimes those four overlapped.

Gazzola

In the 2nd Circuit’s own words: “…a State cannot impose a regulation on commercial firearms dealers as a class that has the effect of prohibiting law-abiding, responsible citizens from possessing common-use weapons.”

On the negative side, the 2nd Circuit dismissed many of the other claims for a restraining order because the plaintiffs did not have standing or because of gaps between state and federal laws.

The former is a tactic where, if you are going to lose on facts, argue that the plaintiffs aren’t allowed to sue on technical reasons so, even if the plaintiffs are correct, they can’t sue.

In denying standing, the 2nd Circuit made an extraordinary statement that the plaintiffs: “…have not shown that the New York law is so restrictive that it threatens a citizen’s right to acquire firearms.”  (How can it not threaten the right to acquire firearms when that was the purpose of the law!)  It then cites a case decided by the most 9th circuit (left coast), the most far left appeals court in the federal system.

The latter reason follows the traditional leftist strategy to delay by finding issues not addressed in court decisions.  For instance, D.C. v Heller was a SCOTUS victory for gun rights advocates but the left delayed its implementation by arguing it only applied to D.C. and not the states.  McDonald v Chicago closed that gap and said that Heller did apply to the states.  Then the Left argued that keeping and bearing arms only applied in the home until NYSRPA v Bruen shot down that argument.  (But there were 13 years between the Heller and Bruen decisions.)

The Other Four

CCIA designated most places in NY State into ‘sensitive areas’.  (Gun-free zones.)  The 2nd Circuit “split the baby” on this and left some gun free zones intact and did away with others. 

Privately owned properties that are typically open to the public like gas stations and grocery stores are no longer sensitive places. A concealed carrier can now go to public areas without worry of being arrested.

As to private homes being gun-free zones unless the owner makes a proactive statement that guns are allowed, the 2nd Circuit “Remand(s) the preliminary injunction…with respect to private property not open to the public for further merits analysis consistent with this opinion.”

CCIA required applicants for gun licenses to submit a list of their social media accounts to help officials assess their character and conduct. The 2nd Circuit rejected that requirement, on 1st and 2nd Amendment grounds.

But the 2nd Circuit upheld CCIA’s character requirement in licensing.  The judges wrote in their opinion. “Licensing that includes discretion that is bounded by defined standards, we conclude, is part of this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”

But…

While upholding the character provision, the 2nd Circuit acknowledged that it is “a spongy concept susceptible to abuse” (ya think!)  They further warned, “A licensing decision that uses ‘good moral character’ as a smokescreen to deny licenses for impermissible reasons untethered to dangerousness, such as the applicant’s lifestyle or political preferences, would violate the Constitution by relying on a ground for disarmament for which there is no historical basis.”

The 2nd Circuit lets the government have discretion in licensing.  Interestingly, in another case, the Rahimi case, the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the government should not have discretion.

The 2nd Circuit let stand these laws that are subject to abuse because it feels that abuses can be addressed on an exception basis, as they arise.  (As long as you have enough money and time to fight the government.) 

The 2nd Circuit also upheld the statute’s “catch-all” provision, which requires a license applicant to submit any other information required by the licensing officer that is necessary and related to the review of the licensing application. “Neither the history of licensing regimes nor Bruen itself supports the conclusion that the conferral of some discretion to a licensing officer to request reasonable supplementary information is unconstitutional.”  (Even when it results in the loss of a Constitutional right?) 

The 2nd Circuit also upheld the law's cohabitant requirement.  The panel found the law’s requirement for applicants to submit contact information for their current spouse or domestic partner, in addition to any adult cohabitants, is imperative to assess their moral character.  (Assess moral character: there is a barn door asking the Left to drive a Mack Truck through!  Wanna bet that NY State considers MAGA to be immoral?  Remember when Governor Cuomo said there was no place in NY for Conservatives?)

But the court affirmed a preliminary injunction in favor of Pastor Micheal Spencer and His Tabernacle Family Church in Horseheads, New York, who challenged the “sensitive places” provision in relation to houses of worship on the grounds it burdens his religious practice.

“The CCIA is not neutral because it allows the owners of many forms of private property, including many types of retail businesses open to the public, to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms on the premises while denying the same autonomy to places of worship,” the judges said in their opinion.

The named plaintiff in the case, Pastor Spencer, and the congregation of the Tabernacle Family Church will be allowed to carry firearms, but the injunction only applies to them.

However, remember the changes in the law made this past Spring:

2022’s CCIA, among other things, banned individuals from carrying firearms in “sensitive locations,” including houses of worship, with the exception of private security.  New York State’s 2023-24 budget amended CCIA.  The new law now allows armed “persons responsible for security at such place(s) of worship.”

The vague language in the law makes it unclear how churches can defend themselves.  The term “security guard” is defined as individuals “who have been granted a special armed registration card, while at the location of their employment and during their work hours as such a security guard.” 

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies told the Daily Caller that Hochul’s changes to the CCIA are “vague as to whether that can just be a concealed carry permit holder who is assigned to a security team or whether it has to be a licensed, paid security officer.”

While trying to hide the obvious leftward leaning slant to most of this judicial opinion, the NY Times revealed the true motives of the 2nd Circuit:

“…the appeals court allowed states broader freedom to justify new gun laws than had been understood by many judges in the wake of the Bruen decision.”  (In plain words, they ignored SCOTUS’ Bruen decision.)

Jacob Charles, a Pepperdine University law professor whose work was cited in the ruling, said in an interview that the interpretation would “allow states to have a lot more leeway in enacting gun regulations.”  (Don’t worry about what that pesky Constitution actually says, just twist it to your goals.)

As long as SCOTUS has its current roster of judges, when this ultimately reaches SCOTUS much of it should be overturned.  Until then…we're stuck and the lawsuits will continue.

Statistics  by Tom Reynolds Illegal Immigration Legal Insurrection reported that Jeh Johnson, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary under Barack Obama, once said that 1,000 border crossings in a day is a “bad day…overwhelms the system”, & that 4,000 in a day is a “crisis”. Fox news reported that there were more than 12,000+ migrant encounters at the southern border in one day, the highest single day total ever recorded. This includes 10,200+ Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal immigrants, amongst the highest daily totals for the Border Patrol ever recorded. Over 12,000 Migrant Encounters on Tuesday Sets ‘Single Day Total Ever Recorded’ (legalinsurrection.com) According to the report of the GOP Majority on the Committee on Homeland Security, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released figures in May 2023 calculating the financial impact of the crisis for cities and states across the country.  It found that the annual cost just to care for and house the known gotaways and illegal aliens who have been released into the country under Mayorkas’ leadership could cost as much as an astounding $451 billion ($451,000,000,000).  That’s almost half a trillion dollars! Phase4Report.pdf (house.gov) Electric Vehicles Legal Insurrection also reports that Congress - at the urging of the Biden administration - agreed in 2021 to spend $7.5 billion ($7,500,000,000) to build tens of thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the country, aiming to appease anxious drivers while tackling climate change. Politico has just published an update on those funds and two years later, the program has yet to install a single charger. Federal officials authorized more than $2 billion of the funds to be sent to states but fewer than half of states have even started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers — let alone begin construction After Congress Allocated $7.5 Billion for Electric Vehicle Chargers, Exactly Zero Have Been Built (legalinsurrection.com) Gun Permits Ammoland reported that more than 260,000 Israelis have applied for firearm permits in the two months since the Hamas terrorist attacks, according to The Times of Israel. Note:  On December 1st, SCOPE reported that there were 214,913 NICS checks in the U.S.A. on Black Friday, alone. Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel’s National Security Minister, told the Times his office was approving 3,000 firearm permit applications per day, as opposed to around 100 per day before the terrorist attacks. “When the war started, we knew that we were right when we said that every person that has a weapon can save a life,” Ben Gvir said, according to the Times. “We need to enable as many people as possible to carry a weapon.” I It’s unfortunate that Ben Gvir said this in hindsight. Countless countries that had restrictive gun laws have been attacked by their neighbors.  That should never happen again, anywhere, because the ability to defend oneself is an inherent human right, which should transcend rules, regulations and borders. Current events demonstrate the incredible forethought our Framers had when they wrote the Second Amendment and codified the right to keep and bear arms into law. We became a nation of rifleman and riflewomen. Too many countries learned too late that there is no substitute for a gun culture, and that you simply cannot create a gun culture overnight, no matter how dire the threat. A Quarter-Million Israeli Gun Applicants Prove the Necessity of our Second Amendment (ammoland.com) Given the invasions in Ukraine and Israel, one would think that even the most ardent anti-gunners would rethink their Second Amendment position?  Then there are the millions of people who have entered the USA illegally; one has to believe there are a lot of people wishing the USA harm amongst them.  What’s a lot?  If the bad guys are only 1% of 10 million, that is 100,000.  And we can see from how well organized the EV Charging Station initiative was that we cannot count on the government to do its job and sort out the bad guys. But, in spite of the statistics and examples cited above, the anti-gunners will not change their position.  The gun-ban industry’s antipathy toward the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the fact that it saves American lives. Gun control is about control. The lives lost in gun-free zones are only collateral damage to the Left in their lust for control. The Biden-Harris administration has done more to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights than all other administrations combined, regardless of the real-world examples we see that prove the need for an armed, trained citizenry. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”  We’ve seen in the “mostly peaceful protests” of recent years that our government will not protect ordinary citizens lives and properties.  It’s up to us, the American citizen gun owner, to be prepared to provide the protection for ourselves that our government will not.

2nd Amendment Policies of the 2024 Presidential Candidates  (research provided by John Elwood)

SCOPE’s purpose is to inform and educate members and the general public on issues.  Too often, candidates are nominated on whether they are white, black, Hispanic or Asian.  SCOPE believes they should be chosen based on the issues – or as Martin Luther King Jr said: “on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin.”  Towards that end, we are sharing with you some of the major candidates’ public statements on the 2nd Amendment, to help you decide based on the issues.

Donald Trump

Speaking in Texas shortly after a mass shooting incident, Trump backed up Republican calls to resist new gun restrictions and, instead, called for increased mental health services and school security measures.  In an April 14, 2023 speech to the NRA, Trump vowed to defend and expand gun-owners rights. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-mass-shootings-arent-gun-problem-nra-convention-rcna79775).

He would prod Congress to pass legislation creating a national system of reciprocity to allow people to carry concealed weapons while visiting other states. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-mass-shootings-arent-gun-problem-nra-convention-rcna79775, para 26).  

On February 26, 2019, he threatened a presidential veto on legislation requiring a universal background check for most gun purchase and transfers.(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-trumps-record-gun-control-reform/story?id=64783662).   

In a speech to the NRA leadership forum, he stated, no one will lay a finger on your firearms.  I will uphold those words, “Shall not be infringed”.

(https://www.c-span.org/video/?527239-5/president-trump-speaks-nra-leadership-forum#:~:text=%5BAPPLAUSE%5D%20I%20WAS%20PROUD%20TO,PRESIDENT%20OF%20THE%20UNITED%20STAT) (April 14, 2023 13.30 minute mark).
(https://www.c-span.org/video/?527239-5/president-trump-speaks-nra-leadership-forum#:~:text=%5BAPPLAUSE%5D%20I%20WAS%20PROUD%20TO,PRESIDENT%20OF%20THE%20UNITED%20STAT (April 14, 2023, 19:38) 

• ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines;

• require universal background checks for all gun purchases;

• red flag laws which permit the temporary confiscation of a person’s gun if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others;

• eliminating gun manufacturer’s immunity from liability.*(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-guns/story?id=103313114)  

• Declare a national emergency around the gun violence epidemic and build a robust plan around gun control.

• Work with every state to increase and ensure funding for violence intervention programs.

• Eliminate the sale of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, and 3-D printing of firearms.  Assault weapons should not be sold to private citizens. 

• Increase the legal age to buy any gun to 21.

• Establish strict control of gun use and access among children and require child safety locks on all guns.

• Expand background checks and end the gun show loophole.

• Ban straw purchases prohibiting anyone from buying, selling, transferring or loaning firearms on behalf of someone else.

• Treat gun violence as an issue of public health.

• Remove current limits on the Center for Disease Control (CDC) ability to track and record gun ownership numbers in America.

• Strengthen restrictions on the ability of individuals with mental disorders to purchase a gun.

• Strengthen red-flag laws by passing Extreme Risk Protection Orders nationwide, allowing family members and law enforcement to seek court permission to temporarily remove guns from a person n danger of harming himself or others.

• Appoint federal justices who understand that perpetrators of domestic violence should not have guns.

• Require coursework, training, age restrictions, and periodic renewal along the same lines as licenses to drive a car.

• Encourage and fund research into the relationship between pharmaceutical use and suicidal/homicidal behavior, especially among youth.  (https://marianne2024.com/issues/gun-safety/).

Many people believe the 2024 election will be the most important election in the history of the United States; certainly, since the election of 1864 during the Civil War.  The Constitution of the United States affords citizens of the United States many rights, but with those rights comes responsibilities.  Voters must get out and vote, but before they do that, voters in the 2024 election MUST know and understand the policies of each candidate.  This is especially true when it comes to the Second Amendment.  

He stated “I will take Biden’s executive order directing the federal government to target the firearms industry and I will rip it up and throw it out on day one.  I will eliminate the Biden ATFs ridiculous pistol brace rule”.

Ron DeSantis

“A constitutional right should not require a permission slip from the government. It is time we joined 25 other states to enact constitutional carry in the state of Florida.” ‘People will die’: why is Ron DeSantis loosening gun laws that most Floridians support? | Ron DeSantis | The Guardian

Stated he would defend the Second Amendment.  Gov DeSantis signed legislation in Florida for people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.  (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-guns/story?id=103313114).

DeSantis says he wouldn’t nationalize Florida’s ‘red flag law”(https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-florida-red-flag-law/45664290). 

Nicki Haley

Opposes gun control measures, including red flag laws.  “I don’t trust government to deal with red-flag laws.(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/18/us/politics/nikki-haley-republican-candidates-2024-issues.html)

“To sit there and say that it’s just a gun issue is the lazy way out,” Haley said at a town hall event in New Hampshire. “We need to acknowledge the whole issue. And the whole issue is [the shooter in Nashville] was struggling and there was nobody there to help her.” Nikki Haley Says It's 'Lazy' to Focus on Guns After Nashville Shooting (rollingstone.com)

Haley said she is "a concealed weapons permit holder myself" and that her husband is a hunter. NRA convention: Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley appeal to NPR (usatoday.com)

Vivek Ramamswamy

Believes the Second Amendment is “the one amendment that protects all of the others,” and that the Constitution would not exist without it.(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-guns/story?id=103313114).

He has labelled himself a “Second Amendment absolutist; calls for the ATF shutdown.(https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/debates/vivek-ramaswamy-politics-views-2024/).

His position on expanding background checks is unclear.   His position on whether gun manufacturers should be able to be sued in court is unclear.  He is a gun owner.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/candidates/vivek-ramaswamy-2024/).

When asked should access to guns be restricted for individuals who might harm themselves or others, also known as a red flag law, Mr. Ramamswamy stated “No”. In July 2023, he stated he is against red flag laws.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/vivek-ramaswamy-guns-crime/).

He told an NRA crowd in April, 2023, he wanted to “make constitutional carry the law of the land”(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/vivek-ramaswamy-guns-crime/).

Chris Christie

Stated, “it’s a right for people to own guns, including assault weapons.”  He said he doesn’t own one “but that’s been my choice.” (CNN, Jun 12, 2023).

The New Jersey Governor, in 1995, stated he supported an assault weapons ban, but in a January 7, 2016 interview with Sean Hannity stated that he had changed my mind, and the biggest reason was his seven years as a federal prosecutor.  What he learned in those seven years was that we were spending much too much time talking about gun laws against law-abiding citizens and not nearly enough time talking about enforcing the gun laws strongly against criminals(https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/chris-christie-guns-217437).

Adding, he stated, “I learned what the limitations are of these laws that people are talking about and how they much, much, more greatly infringe on law-abiding citizens than they do anything to prevent crime”. (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/chris-christie-guns-217437).

A former federal prosecutor, he has voiced support for aspects of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed by Congress in 2022, which provided funding to states to support the implementation of red-flag laws.  Chris Christie insists banning guns is not the answer, and emphasizes the mental health aspects. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-guns/story?id=103313114).

Doug Burgum

He designates North Dakota as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State” and signs bills protecting gun rights.(https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-designates-north-dakota-second-amendment-sanctuary-state-signs-bills-protecting-gun).

He stated, “We stand united with our congressional delegation in opposition to President Biden’s executive actions threatening the Second Amendment right of North Dakotans…Our state Constitution declares that the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of yourself, your family, and your property shall not be infringed’ and we vigorously oppose any action that would deny that right”.(https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-statement-president-bidens-executive-action-guns).

The Firearm Industry Trade Association commends North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum for signing legislation to protect the financial privacy of purchases with credit cards at firearm retailers.(https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-commends-north-dakota-gov-burgum-for-signing-second-amendment-financial-privacy-act), May 30, 2023).

Joe Biden

He has called on Congress to:

*Note- this Biden statement is a lie.  Gun manufacturers are not immune from liability.

In September 2023, Joe Biden established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in an effort to reduce gun violence.

( https://www.whitehouse.gov/ogvp/).  

The Biden administration is revoking licenses from hundreds of firearms dealers in a significant escalation of federal enforcement actions. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has revoked the licenses of 122 gun dealers in the fiscal year that began in October, up from 90 for all last fiscal year and 27 in 2021. Hundreds of Gun Dealers Lose Licenses Under Biden Administration Crackdown (msn.com)

Robert F. Kennedy

He stated in June 2023 he does not believe that there is anything that we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade and the ownership of guns, “following last year’s Supreme Court decision that allow concealed carry of hand guns in public areas…anybody who tells you if they’re going to be able to reduce gun violence through gun control at this point, I don’t think its being realistic.”(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-guns/story?id=103313114).  

On June 28, 2023, at a town hall with NewsNation, he stated, “I’m not going to take people’s guns away.” His emphasis on refusing to infringe on Americans constitutional rights echoes a common Republican position on the limitations of responding to gun violence through gun control.  Kennedy did say he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban.  He stated, “If we can get a consensus on it, If Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I would sign it.(https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4072813-rfk-jr-argues-gun-control-cannot-meaningfully-reduce-gun-violence/#:~:text=argues%20gun%20control%20cannot%20'meaningfully'%).

When asked about his stance on the Second Amendment, RFK Jr stated, “I believe in the Constitution and I’m not going to take everybody’s guns away.”(https://crimeresearch.org/2023/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-that-he-supports-the-second-amendment/).

Marianne Williamson

She has stated that a Williamson administration will:

She stated, “I support universal background checks, a federal red-flag law, a ban on assault weapons and bump stocks,and a requirement to have a license to own a gun. I support a waiting period for gun purchases.  We should make schools gun free zones.  We do not need to arm teachers.   (Nov 7, 2019)

_____________________________________________

A lady once asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin, “What have we got here a republic or a monarchy?  Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic if you can keep it”.  Can we keep our republic?  It is up to YOU!

Thanks to John Elwood for the research on this article

GOSAFE – Go Defenseless  by Tom Reynolds

The anti-gun (anti-U S Constitution) Democrats never cease proposing laws to take away our constitutionally protected rights. This past Thursday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) announced its opposition to a newly proposed Senate bill which is so new it doesn’t yet have a number. Below is a part of NSSF’s announcement.

“NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, flatly rejects the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act, which would ban the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and most other semi-automatic rifles. This proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that entire classes of firearms cannot be banned from legal sale and possession by law-abiding citizens. The bill was introduced today by U.S. Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).”

“The legislation introduced by Senators King and Heinrich is openly defiant of the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. There is no path forward for legislation of this nature that would deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to lawfully possess the firearm of their choosing and the full spectrum of their Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel."

“The legislation introduced by Sens. King and Heinrich would ban the sale of commonly owned gas-operated, semiautomatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines. The bill would also place a federal limit on magazine capacity, a measure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found had no appreciable effect on crime reduction during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.”

“There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation since 1990, which are used daily for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting and recreational target shooting.”

What is a gas operated, semi-automatic rifle? Directly from the proposed bill: “The term ‘gas-operated’, with respect to a semi-automatic firearm, means any firearm that harnesses or traps a portion of the high-pressure gas from a fired cartridge to cycle the action.” (Wow. That describes every semi-automatic firearm I’ve ever owned, which is exactly what it was meant to ban.)

Bill sponsor Martin Heinrich had the usual liberal rationale to say about his bill:

“The GOSAFE Act is a commonsense proposal…” (Liberals describing common sense is like the three blind men describing an elephant by the different parts that they feel.)

“The GOSAFE Act regulates firearms based on the inherently dangerous and unusual lethality.,.” (Did it ever occur to the gun grabbers that all guns are dangerous and lethal? Of course it did! That’s why each of their proposed laws is one more step towards banning all guns.)

What’s the penalty for violating this proposal?

“Whoever violates subsection (v) or (w) of section 922 shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both, for each offense.”

Another NICS Record  by Tom Reynolds

Another record number of National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks were conducted on Black Friday, (November 24th).

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said the FBI conducted 214,913 NICS checks on Black Friday, easily surpassing the 192,749 NICS checks conducted on Black Friday 2022.  Breitbart News reported the FBI conducted 187,585 NICS checks on Black Friday 2021 and 186,645 checks on Black Friday 2020.

It did not all happen on Black Friday.  The NSSF indicated that another 465,758 background checks related to firearms were conducted during the rest of the week, bringing the entire week of Black Friday total to 680,671.

The NICS checks conducted during Black Friday week do not translate into a precise number of guns sold, as background checks are conducted on the buyer of firearms rather than the firearms themselves. And a would-be purchaser who passes a background check might not buy a gun or might buy multiple guns.

In any case, a heckuva lot of guns were sold last week.

And yet, Biden and Hockul believe that civilian gun sales should be stopped or inhibited.

How about a record number of gun owners show up to vote next November Election Day and set those two straight!

Another Ammo Act  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE tries to fulfill its purpose by keeping its members and the general public informed.  We’re trying, but given the proliferation of anti-2nd Amendment laws and the Left’s new focus on Ammo restrictions, one needs a scorecard to tell which Ammo Act is the Left’s ‘ammo law du jour’.

Always looking to muddy the waters, Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren (Pocahantas) and Richard Blumenthal (the Viet Nam vet who wasn’t) have recently introduced Senate Bill S.3223; it’s yet another Ammo Act.   This iteration of Ammo legislation threatens to severely restrict bulk ammunition sales, potentially infringing upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners. It currently sits in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

Under this AMMO Act:

• it would be unlawful for any person licensed under federal firearm regulations to transfer to an unlicensed individual more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition within a five-day period;
• individuals wishing to purchase ammunition would be subject to the same rigorous background checks currently applied to firearm purchases;
• it also mandates that all ammunition sales records must be retained by Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders for a minimum of two years.

It’s another backdoor attack on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Some potential consequences of this legislation:

it will make it significantly more challenging for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms by making it more difficult to obtain the ammo needed for firearms and, thus, more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves;

the data collected under this act could be misused or mishandled, potentially violating the privacy rights of American citizens;

criminals will find ways to circumvent the AMMO Act’s restrictions, while law-abiding citizens will face unnecessary red tape when purchasing ammunition;

FFL record retention opens the door to invasion of privacy of law-abiding gun owners.  It raises concerns about government misuse of background check data;

due to ever more intrusive laws infringing on the 2^nd Amendment, firearms owners are taking preventative action and buying in bulk.  The bulk sale limitation would make it more difficult for firearms owners to counteract present and future unconstitutional laws that take years to fight in courts;

Are such measures even necessary?  Do they address any of the underlying issues, such as mental health, related to gun violence?  Where are the studies that back up the effectiveness of this proposal?

It is crucial for concerned citizens to stay informed, engage in respectful dialogue, and advocate for their constitutional rights. Now, more than ever, it is vital for Americans to engage in a thoughtful and informed discussion about the future of our Second Amendment rights and navigate the complex challenges surrounding gun ownership, public safety, and individual liberties in the United States.

S00930 and A01566 Won’t Work  by John Elwood

SCOPE’s purpose is to inform and educate its membership and the general public on firearms issues - and especially those issues which threaten our constitutional rights.  NY Senate bill S00930 and companion bill in the Assembly A01566 are threats of which you need to be aware.

In the past, there have been many attempts by the left to ban ammunition. Ammunition restriction attempts are not new in the United States.  A few examples:

In the Gun Control Act of 1968, the law required purchaser of handgun ammunition and rifle-caliber ammunition that could be used in a handgun to sign ledgers documenting their purchases. 

In the eighties, gun control advocates pushed legislation that would ban traditional ammunition manufactured with bullets made of lead. 

A decade later, gun control supporters sought a 1,000 percent tax on 9mm, .25 and .32 caliber ammunition, a 50 percent tax on all handgun ammunition, a ban on mail-order ammunition sales, a requirement for a background check to purchase ammunition, and a limit on the amount of ammunition a person could own without an “arsenal license.” 

In 2015, two years after failing to get Congress to ban the AR-15, and other general-purpose rifles, the Obama Administration attempted to bypass Congress to ban the second most common ammunition used in the rifle. 

Currently, six states have laws regulating ammunition sales and require background checks:  New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.  All Democratic led states! 

As part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), New York State began ammunition background checks on September 13, 2023.  Initial reports indicate that due to ammunition background checks, most ammunition purchases are delayed, inconveniencing customers.  Infringement of the Second Amendment does not stop there! 

The New York Senate bill (S00930) has been introduced.  If passed, it will restrict the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such a weapon, and it creates the no-gun database under the division of criminal justice service. 

S00930 was introduced and referred to the Senate codes committee on January 9, 2023, and may be acted upon in the 2024 legislative year.  State Senator Roxanne Persaud, a Democrat from New York City’s Senate district 19 is the bill’s lone sponsor, and is a member of the Senate codes committee.  (There is No corresponding SCOPE chapter in Senate district 19.) 

Will Senator Persaud’s influence convince the codes committee to pass the bill, and send it to the floor for a Senate vote?

What makes this bill important to fight against is that there is a corresponding bill, a SAME AS BILL also making its way through the New York State Assembly. A01566 is the companion bill to S00930 and it advocates for the same measure – restricting the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess a matching weapon, and creating a no-gun database. 

A01566 was introduced in the Assembly on January 17, 2023, and currently sits on the Assembly codes committee.  Assemblywoman JoAnne Simon from district 52 in Brooklyn is the primary sponsor for A01566, and is a member of the Assembly codes committee.  (There is no SCOPE Chapter in district 52).  This strongly partisan bill has 14 Democratic cosponsors.  Assemblyman David McDonough represents district 14 in Nassau County is the lone Republican sponsor.  (Assembly district 14 has no corresponding SCOPE chapter.) 

S00930 and A01566 declare a person is guilty of criminal sale of firearm ammunition when a person sells any firearm ammunition to a person not authorized pursuant to a law to possess a firearm capable of firing such ammunition. 

Violation of this proposed law would be a Class B Misdemeanor.  In New York State, misdemeanors are punishable by community service, fines, probation or a jail sentence up to 90 days or a combination.   Misdemeanor convictions will typically show up on routine background checks by employers or law enforcement agencies.  A misdemeanor conviction can stay on your record forever, but starting in October 2017, a person can ask a court to seal up to two criminal convictions of which either can be misdemeanors, but only one can be a felony.  

S00930 and A01566 further creates a no-gun database containing the name, date of birth and any other pertinent information that the division of criminal justice deems appropriate.  The criminal justice division will allow any person selling a firearm or firearm ammunition within the state to check the no-gun database for the buyer of such firearm or firearm ammunition.  Finally, if the bill becomes law, it goes into effect on November 1 next succeeding the date of which it becomes law. 

Why do State Senator Persaud and Assembly woman JoAnne Simon want to push S0093 and A01566?  Are they concerned about gun violence in New York City and Nassau County?  Do they support the “defund the police” movement, a Democrat policy which helped to reduce the New York City Police Department (NYPD) budget? 

Senator Persaud and Assemblywoman JoAnne Simon undoubtably think about how S00930 and A01566 will affect voting their district, but do they think about how those bills will impact real world issues? Do they realize S00930 and A01566 would preclude husbands, wives, sons, daughters, and friends from buying ammunition for their loved ones.  And if the idea is to stop criminals from obtaining ammunition, the two bills won’t work; if criminals want to get ammunition, they will get it.  Criminals do not follow the law, period!  These two bills, if enacted, punish the law abiding majority and don’t hold criminals accountable for the crimes they commit.   

An attempt was made to ask Senator Persaud and Assemblywoman Simon what their motivations were behind S00930 and A01566, but this author did not receive any answer from them. 

Questions Persaud and Simon need to answer:

Currently, the National Rifle Association – Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), the lobbying arm of the NRA, does not have a position on either S00930 or A01566.   

It is incumbent on ALL SCOPE members to GET INVOLVED and call your state senators and assembly persons and tell them to OPPOSE S00930 and A01566.  Furthermore, converse with Democrat voters, and convince them to support the Second Amendment!  No longer do we have the luxury to sit on the sidelines and wait for someone else to fight laws against the Second Amendment.  Everyone MUST get INVOLVED today!  Everyone should say, “SEND ME”!

Funding Lawsuits  by Tom Reynolds

The unconstitutional laws enacted by Democrat legislatures from coast-to-coast have led to numerous lawsuits against them by 2A organizations.  Always wanting to be the leader in unconstitutional activities involving firearms, Governor Hochul, the NY Legislatures and NY Attorney General Letitia James have enacted laws or defended many of the resultant lawsuits.

New Mexico’s Attorney General refused to defend his governor’s unconstitutional executive order which, effectively, suspended the 2nd Amendment.  No such danger of ethics superseding politics from NY’s Attorney General Letitia James.

When James defends an unconstitutional law, she does so on the bottomless taxpayers’ dime.  But those that oppose these laws must finance them out-of-pocket and that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Knowing this, James appeals all decisions to higher courts, running up the lawyer’s fees and hoping to bankrupt her opponents before the Constitution triumphs.

SCOPE is not big enough to bring or finance these lawsuits on our own, but we have done something very unusual for not-for-profit (NFP) organizations; we have fund-raised for and contributed to other NFP organizations in support of their lawsuits. 

SCOPE did a fund raiser for GOA-NY’s lawsuits earlier this year.  This resulted in contributions to GOA-NY of:

SCOPE Legal Defense Fund                                            $3,000

Steuben County SCOPE                                             $2,000

Allegany County SCOPE                                             $2,000
Gary Zielinski                                                                     $500

Genesee County SCOPE                                            $2,000

SCOPE members                                                        $5,370                                                                                    $14,870            

As of Feb. 2023 members gifted directly to GOA      $1,550

Total                                                                                   $16,420

Any money we receive to fund lawsuits is kept separate in what is called the Legal Defense Fund (LDF).  As well as member contributions, money has come from fund raisers at both the state SCOPE and the SCOPE chapter levels. 

Cayuga County SCOPE contributed $2,000 to LDF in August 2022.

Jefferson Lewis SCOPE gave $1,000 to LDF in 2015

Steuben County is doing a firearm raffle where net proceeds go to support lawsuits

Some chapters have contributed directly to these other organizations’ lawsuits:

Monroe County SCOPE gave two checks each for $500 in 2022 directly to GOA-NY.

Monroe County gave $1,000 directly to GOA-NY at their November meeting

Cayuga County SCOPE: sent $100 to Virginia Gun Rights Group;
$500 to Second Amendment Foundation;
$500 to Firearms Policy Coalition;
$1,000 to NYS Firearms Association;
$500 to Second Amendment Foundation

Currently, SCOPE’s Board of Directors is developing procedures to formalize the evaluation of requests for donations since we fully expect many more lawsuits and, since our pocket is not bottomless, we want to get the most bang-for-the-buck.

SCOPE may be a relatively small organization when compared to the NRA but with our chapters and the state SCOPE working together, we can make a difference.