Kamala is On Her Way to Save the Day  by Tom Reynolds

Joe Biden announced the formation of ‘Executive Office of Gun Violence Prevention.’  Biden pledged to use the office to “centralize, accelerate, and intensify” his administration’s gun control push.

A  report by the Washington Post makes clear that this new office will be coordinating with the ‘Community Justice Action Fund’ and ‘Everytown for Gun Safety,’ two far left gun control organizations.

On a positive note, Biden said he had chosen Vice President Kamala Harris to oversee the office.  She was a disaster as the ‘Border Czar” so let’s hope she is as successful in this endeavor as she was on illegal immigration.

After Biden announced the launch of the new office, he then called for an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and universal background checks. He also called for Congress to take action for more gun restrictions.

Biden previously used 2022’s Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act to cut off funding to those bastions of criminal activity: high school trap shooting and high school archery programs.

His ATF has put in place rules defining partially complete firearm frames as firearms, has put forward a rule requiring registration of AR-pistols with stabilizer braces, and has most recently proposed a rule to bring the country nearer to universal background checks.  In addition the ATF has a zero tolerance of clerical mistakes in its efforts to drive FFL’s out of business.

______________________________________________

We are constantly bombarded with studies showing how wonderful every Democrat initiative is in preventing the imminent destruction of the world in 5 or 10 or 15 years.  The media is quick to publicize any study, without hesitation.

A column in the ‘Wall Street Journal Webview’ entitled The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists highlights a group of scientists that get little notice, but they cast doubt on studies that were quickly accepted.  The investigative work of the ‘Data Colada’ scientists and many other academic volunteers has caused numerous studies to be redacted.

How many you ask?

At least 5,500 faulty papers were retracted in 2022, compared with 119 in 2002, according to ‘Retraction Watch,’ a website that keeps a tally.

Of nearly 800 papers that one researcher reported to 40 journals in 2014 and 2015 for running misleading images, only a third had been corrected or retracted five years later.

An article by some of these scientists, published in 2014, coined the now-common academic term “p-hacking,” which describes cherry-picking data or analyses to make insignificant results look statistically credible.

Why does this happen?

The pressure to publish papers—which can yield jobs, grants, speaking engagements and seats on corporate advisory boards—pushes researchers to chase unique and interesting findings, sometimes at the expense of truth, according to researcher Joe Simmons.

“It drives me crazy that slow, good, careful science—if you do that stuff, if you do science that way, it means you publish less,” Simmons said. “Obviously, if you fake your data, you can get anything to work.”   

So, the next time you see the media hyperventilating over some new leftist study about guns – take a deep breath.

WSJ Webview - The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists (onservo.com)

_____________________________________________

The gun grabbing left would have us believe that, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the founding fathers could not have imagined the advances in firearms that have taken place.  Not so.  The Founders were well aware that what had been impossible or unimaginable to one generation could become commonplace in the next. 

The following is per ‘reason’ website: The Founders were well aware of continuing advances in arms technology (reason.com)

The first European settlers in America had mainly owned matchlocks. When the trigger was pressed, a smoldering hemp cord was lowered to the firing pan; the powder in the pan then ignited the main gunpowder charge in the barrel.

Then there was the wheel lock, invented by Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519). In a wheel lock, the powder in the firing pan is ignited when a serrated wheel strikes a piece of iron pyrite.

Even better than the wheel lock, but simpler and less expensive, was the flintlock which first appeared in the mid-sixteenth century. Flintlocks were more reliable than matchlocks, especially in adverse weather, although still far from impervious to rain and moisture. Significantly, Flintlocks are much simpler and faster to reload than matchlocks. 

In 1777, in Philadelphia, inventor Joseph Belton demonstrated a firearm that could fire 16 shots all at once. The Continental Congress voted to order a hundred, while requesting that they be produced as 8-shot models.  (Gunpowder was scarce.) The deal fell through because Congress could not afford the high price that Belton demanded as the small internal components required especially complex and precise fitting and were expensive.

The 22-shot Girardoni rifle with a 21 or 22 round caliber tubular magazine had been invented in 1779 and was later carried by the Lewis & Clark expedition.  Powered by compressed air, its .46 caliber bullet had a muzzle velocity of 900 fps.  It was able to punch a hole in a 1 inch pine board for the first 30 shots on a single air reservoir. (It was no Daisy BB Gun!)  The power dissipated after 30 shots and required a ‘pump up.’  The disadvantage was that once empty the reservoirs required a significant effort and 1500 strokes to restore full power. 

South Carolina gunsmith James Ransier of Charleston was advertising four-shot repeaters for sale in the Columbian Herald (Charleston) on October 26, 1785.

Firearms had improved significantly in the 300 years after Columbus landed and the founding fathers had no reason to believe they would not continue to evolve.  Keeping and bearing arms was not intended to stop with those in existence when the 2nd Amendment was passed, as the Supreme Court rightly decreed.

So, Sue Me!  by Tom Reynolds

People whose sole religion is power will do anything to gain and maintain that power.  Ignoring the law means nothing to them.

SCOPE has spoken often on how Democrat run states just ignore the Constitution when passing gun control laws and basically say: “What are you gonna do about it?  Sue me?  The state has bottomless taxpayer financed funds to defend the illegal laws while you have to self-finance the challenge.”

And in solid blue states like New York, there is no chance of impeachment .    

It isn’t just gun related laws they ignore.

New York State’s Constitution states that to get an absentee ballot, you have to be absent or physically unable to vote on election day: Article II §2. [Absentee voting] The legislature may, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified voters who, on the occurrence of any election, may be absent from the county of their residence or, if residents of the city of New York, from the city, and qualified voters who, on the occurrence of any election, may be unable to appear personally at the polling place because of illness or physical disability, may vote and for the return and canvass of their votes.  (Emphasis added.)

In 2021, a Constitutional amendment was on the ballot to change that which, if passed, would have removed the requirement to be absent or physically unable to vote on election day and allowed no excuse absentee balloting.  The proposed amendment said: The proposed amendment would delete from the current provision on absentee ballots the requirement that an absentee voter must be unable to appear at the polls by reason of absence from the county or illness or physical disability. (Emphasis added.)           

It was defeated by 300,000 votes in the election.  The NY Constitution was unchanged.

One of the election law changes that the Democrat controlled legislature recently passed and Democrat Governor Hochul signed was S7394 /A7632 which would allow early voting by mail, also known as no-excuse absentee voting. There is no absentee or illness or physical disability requirement to get an absentee ballot.

Clearly…clearly…and beyond a doubt…the law is unconstitutional.

Former Governor candidate Lee Zeldin said it clearly: “Kathy Hochul is showing an intense desire to spit in the face of voters…Strictly on merits, Hochul doesn't have a leg to stand on and I’d be shocked if she didn't know that. It’s so blatantly obvious that the move made here is giving the middle finger to the voters who said they don't want it.”

We would all be shocked if she didn’t know it was unconstitutional.

A lawsuit was filed challenging the law by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.),

Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), the New York Republican State Committee, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and others.

When New Mexico’s Democrat Governor tried to suspend the 2nd Amendment by her emergency order, it was so obviously unconstitutional that New Mexico’s Attorney General would not defend it, even though he is also a Democrat.  We’ll see if NY Attorney General Letitia James will let party loyalty trump principle and defend it.

Does this make you angry? 

Do you believe it has nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment rights?

The governor and legislature are violating the NY Constitution and went against the will of the people expressed in an election.  But principle means nothing when there is a chance to advance the liberal agenda and ideology.  And in this case, that agenda is unquestionably unconstitutional.

When elected officials are smug and confident of their position that they knowingly and willingly violate the Constitution, the citizens have no protection from a tyrannical government.  And to those gun owners who believe that Hochul and company won’t come for their guns because they are protected by the 2nd Amendment…think again.  They’re coming.  The question isn’t if – it’s when.  The Constitution means nothing to them.

'It's not working': State police ammo database sees issues, delays

By Kate Lisa New York State

PUBLISHED 5:23 AM ET Sep. 19, 2023

Gun owners in the state say they've been improperly denied, or experienced lengthy delays to purchase ammunition for their legal firearms in the days since a new law took effect requiring a New York State Police background check to purchase firing rounds.

Gun rights advocates are questioning how efficiently State Police can process incoming applications, and if the department has the necessary technology and staff to manage appeals in a timely manner.

Gun and ammunition dealers can submit background check applications to the State Police through with an online submission form 24 hours a day, seven days per week, but gun owners said Monday it can take from 30 minutes to a few days until the person requesting to make the purchase gets a response.

Under the new requirements, New Yorkers will pay an additional $9 fee to cover the cost of the background check when purchasing a firearm, or an additional $2.50, which will fund the State Police unit and the system.

"The system isn't working — they're making mistakes," said Tom King, executive director of the state Rifle and Pistol Association.

King said he was denied over the weekend when he filed an application for a background check to purchase .410 shotgun shells in Rensselaer County.

A person has 30 days to appeal if State Police deny the attempted sale, and police have 30 days to respond and explain the reason for the denial. Additional appeals are filed with the state attorney general's office.

The length of appeal may vary based on the reason for denial, according to State Police.

"The New York State Police will continue to update the NYS NICS system in order to provide an accurate and timely response," police said. "Again, while some transactions are processed immediately, others require more research."

King, who's had a pistol permit in the state for more than 40 years, is preparing to go through the appeal process. He cannot try to buy ammunition again until the appeals process concludes as the fall hunting season approaches.

"The only people that this is affecting is the lawful legal citizen in New York state," King said Monday. "We're the ones that are being discriminated against."

Executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Rebecca Fisher said the new system works with the state's strengthened Red Flag Laws to reduce gun violence, and prevent someone who poses a threat to themselves or others from accessing a weapon.

"While lawful gun owners may have to wait a bit longer right now in the immediate, they themselves understand what could potentially happen if an individual who does not have a license or does not pass a background check is able to obtain that gun,” Fischer said.

King plans to file a federal lawsuit to challenge the new rules with other gun owners across the state who say they've also been improperly denied.

"They're denying everybody I've talked to," King added. "I don't know how many individuals who have a totally clean background and they're getting denied, and that happened to me. I've never had anything. I've never had a red flag. I've never had any kind of protection order. I've never been involved with the police ... and I was denied. And that's just wrong."

A separate case challenging the constitutionality of the ammunition database and background checks is working its way through federal court.

The Democratic Legislature implemented the ammunition database and background check process last year in response to a lawsuit from King in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state's century-old concealed carry statute.

But Fischer said advocates confident this law will hold up in court.

"Thirty minutes is not a long time given what's at stake when an individual who should not have a firearm in their hands and should not possess a firearm, is going through the process," Fischer said.

Fischer said it's up to the State Police to implement the system correctly. The legislation requires the department to publish related statistical data in an annual report.

Lawmakers included $20 million in the 2023-24 budget for State Police to implement the new system, including the hiring of 100 additional staff. State Police would not answer questions about its hiring processes or how many of the staff have been hired to date.

"The State Police absolutely has an obligation to ensure that this new system is implemented and enforced," Fischer said. "We are losing over 40,000 individual Americans to gun violence every single year with hundreds of thousands more injured by guns. We need to find that balance."

Assemblyman Robert Smullen, a Republican from Fulton County, said he's heard State Police are struggling with the database rollout.

"It's one of those things whenever you try to do a system the first time usually doesn't go very well, and that's what I'm hearing," he said.

New York State Police officials could not provide the number of background check applications a person in the state has filed to purchase ammo or a firearm since the law took effect. The department will release numbers at a later date.

Any background check conducted is not considered a public record and will not be disclosed to anyone not authorized by law, according to State Police.

Gun and ammo dealers will be able to file background check applications using an automated phone system, but the line will not be available until an undetermined date in October.

State Police also will use funding from background check fees to support operational costs of the program, including the platform that supports the background check process, according to the state Budget Division.

NY NY It’s a Wonderful State:  NEW YORK’S GUN LAWS ARE CHANGING:  HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW   Column from Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay 

Gun owners, outdoor sportsmen and women and stores selling firearms and ammunition will be subjected to some troublesome procedures and protocols after new regulations went into effect on Wednesday, Sept. 13. The crux of the changes pertains to the way background checks will be conducted as well as new fees associated with buying guns and ammunition from your local dealership.

Notably, the new law calls for the New York State Police to conduct background checks for ammunition purchases. Beginning this week, a background check is required prior to the purchase and the responsibility for initiating NICS background checks for firearm, rifle or shotgun purchases has shifted to the State Police. Gun dealers and licensed ammunition sellers will now be required to contact the state police online to process these background checks, however an automated phone system is expected to be active sometime soon. There will now be a $9 fee associated with each firearm purchase and a $2.50 fee for ammunition purchases  to cover the new system’s costs   

If you have any questions or comments on this or any other state issue, or if you would like to be added to my mailing list or receive my newsletter, please contact my office. My office can be reached by mail at 19 Canalview Mall, Fulton, NY 13069 and by email at barclayw@nyassembly.gov. You may also find me, Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay, on Facebook or on Twitter at @WillABarclay.

These changes are especially noteworthy as hunting season is about to begin and as a result gun and ammunition purchases are likely to increase. With the State Police taking on this new responsibility, there will be delays with respect to the background checks and answering all the questions hunters will have as this new law is implemented. If you are planning to enjoy New York’s exceptional hunting opportunities, budget extra time and money.

There are very legitimate concerns about the burden this new system is going to place on the businesses as well as the State Police and the hunting community. Costs will go up and it is unclear what benefits this new law will generate. Albany Democrats have portrayed this new law as a way to improve public safety. However, we know most gun violence comes from those using illegally obtained weapons. This law targets law-abiding gun owners and puts yet another financial burden on already overtaxed businesses and individuals. It’s hard not to look at this as anything more than a punitive fee for access to the Second Amendment.

Remember how the term ‘Not In My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) was popularized, as solar and wind power advocates had second thoughts when their beloved alternate energy schemes were being planned for close to them?  For instance, the leftist elites on Cape Cod had a fit that offshore wind power would spoil their ocean view.

Never to be outdone in the hypocrisy department, these same elite took delight in making their cities, counties and states into ‘sanctuaries’ where illegal immigrants would be safe from federal prosecution.  (Not that the Biden Administration was exactly rabid about prosecuting any illegals.)  Illegal immigrants by the millions were fine in border states like Texas and if a very few made it to New York City they were welcome.

Then, Texas’ governor took the elites at their word and started shipping the illegals to NY City.

The NIMBY’s, like Lazarus, rose from the grave.  They suddenly realized that someone would have to pay to keep all these illegals.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams is quoted as saying: “Let me tell you something New Yorkers: Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City, destroy New York City. We’re getting 10,000 migrants a month.”

According to the recent New York Post article, Adams explained that caring for the migrants flooding the area will add up to $12 billion in the coming three years.

But it’s not just NY City that NY City believes should pay for NY City shooting itself in the foot.  New York City lawmakers want statewide tax increases to pay for migrants flooding into New York City.

The New York Post quoted state Senator Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn): “We should increase taxes because it’s economically just policy to offset all costs for our state to function.”

And never missing an opportunity to push the left’s favorite talking point, she added: “I’d say that even if our city and state hadn’t seen an increase in migrants seeking asylum, this moment makes it all the more important for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.”

We all know that NY City is a very difficult place to get a pistol permit for personal protection.  After all, the theory goes, they have the NYPD to protect them.  Except, Breitbart News has reported that the sanctuary city of New York City is gearing up to slash overtime for its police officers to foot the bill for tens of thousands of border crossers and illegal aliens living off citizens in the area.

The far left is attacking both the safety and the pocketbooks of New Yorkers.  They must believe that NY has swallowed so much of the left’s Kkool-aid that nothing can stop them.

Good News!   Yesterday, we wrote that, The Olean Times Herald reported: High school trap team coaches, registered as “ammunition keepers” with the state police for their teams, typically buy shotgun ammunition in bulk and then give it to team members during practice and competition. Last week, the coach/ammunition keepers received letters from Gov. Kathy Hochul and Acting State Police Superintendent Steven Nigrelli requiring them to register with NYSNICS and establish a method of payment to cover the cost of the background checks.

We are happy to report that we may have been incorrect.  A registered Seller of Ammunition with NYNICS, whose club supports a local High School Trap team, wrote us: I specifically asked a NYNICS rep on Tuesday about the transfer of ammunition to the student shooters and was told that the transfer will not require a background check if there is no sale to the student.  

He added: This may not hold true for skeet/trap teams that buy bulk ammo and SELL it to their members/shooters.  

This sounds great but one note of caution; there is usually confusion over new issues from Hochul, so we hope the NYNICS rep is correct that when there is no sale there will be no background check or fee. 

_______________________________________

SCOPE has been writing about the New Mexico Governor’s emergency public health order suspending the 2nd Amendment. 

Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez announced he will NOT defend the state in pending lawsuits against the democratic governor's public health emergency order.  Torrez said: "Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence," Torrez wrote. "Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster."

Apparently, Grisham did find another attorney to represent her…sort of.

Showing how far out on a limb the New Mexico governor was, at a hearing, Governor Grisham’s attorney conceded that "no law" may infringe the Second Amendment.  Instead, the attorney made the silly argument that the order wasn't a law but was an executive action and should be allowed.  Unconstitutional executive orders are constitutional!

U.S. District Court Judge David Urias (who was nominated by gun grabber in chief Joe Biden) issued a temporary Restraining Order blocking the portion of the order that prohibits lawful gun owners from carrying their guns in public for 30 days.

"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.

This order was so openly unconstitutional that even a Biden Judge and a democrat Attorney General would not support it.

Governor Grisham tried to spin this in the best light saying she is happy that this put the spotlight on“…the significant problem of gun violence in this state.”

Don’t count on this loss stopping the gun grabbers in any state, and especially in New York State, from trying any method to back door the 2nd Amendment into impotence.  Eternal vigilance is necessary.

It came to a State Near You  by Tom Reynolds

Did you stock up on ammo before the new fees and background checks hit on Wednesday?  In some situations, that may not be enough.

As SCOPE has been reporting, Executive Law 228 took effect on September 13th. It requires the New York State Police to conduct instant criminal background checks for all firearm and ammunition purchases or transfers in New York state, at a fee of $9 for firearms and $2.50 for ammo. (Previously, NICS checks on firearm purchases were done at no cost to gun buyers and there was no background check for ammo.)

Many SCOPE chapters help finance high school shooting teams so there is more than just our personal finances and inconvenience to consider.

The Olean Times Herald reported: High school trap team coaches, registered as “ammunition keepers” with the state police for their teams, typically buy shotgun ammunition in bulk and then give it to team members during practice and competition. Last week, the coach/ammunition keepers received letters from Gov. Kathy Hochul and Acting State Police Superintendent Steven Nigrelli requiring them to register with NYSNICS and establish a method of payment to cover the cost of the background checks.

State Senator George Borrello said that requiring a NICS check each time a coach gives a team member a box of ammunition “is ridiculous and unworkable.”

Borello continued: “More than 2,500 student-athletes representing 144 high school clay target teams participate in the NYS High School Clay Target League…These teams have a perfect safety record. Not one student has been injured during practice or competition since the league started in 2001. Not one.”

The Olean Times Herald continued: All participants in clay shooting programs must complete firearm safety certification before practicing and competing. Team members, most between the ages of 13 and 17, are unable to purchase shotgun ammunition themselves. They participate on the teams with a signed permission slip from parents/guardians.

Since all ammunition sellers in New York are required to comply with the new system, this will also affect adult trap, skeet and sporting clays leagues when host clubs sell ammunition to competitors.

“Make no mistake about it, Executive Law 228 is designed to punish law-abiding gun owners,” Borrello said. “It’s another example of egregious government overreach designed to make it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

As with most of the Left’s gun control efforts, the measure will do nothing to reduce crime and it will waste taxpayer money by forcing the state police to act as middlemen.  Of course, leftist posturing without a measurable result was always the goal for Hochul anyway.

Coming To a State Near You (3)  by Tom Reynolds

On Tuesday, SCOPE wrote about New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham issuing an Emergency Health Order suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico.

The idiocy of Grisham’s order was aptly set out by state New Mexico State Senator Greg Baca who said: “A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order.”

And then there are reservations by law enforcement, voiced by Bernalillo County sheriff, John Allen, who said: “…the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold…I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”

Even some national Democrats expressed concern at the scope of the order. Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California posted on X: “I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution…No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution.”

The legal pushback was immediate.  At least four lawsuits, two of which seek immediate injunctive relief, have been filed. (It’s possible more have been filed and are not yet publicly available.)

·       National Association For Gun Rights

·       We The Patriots

·       Randy Donk, Gun Owners of America

·       Shawn Blas

As SCOPE pointed out on Tuesday, the 30 day length of this order may cause the issue to be declared ‘moot’ by the courts before an decision is made.  However, it will be interesting to see if any liberal judge is willing to rule for Grisham in a case where her actions are so clearly unconstitutional.

The National Association for Gun Rights’ lawsuit summarized the legal situation well, that the orders violate the Second Amendment:

“The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But it is impossible for the State to meet this burden, because there is no such historical tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation.”

A second lawsuit by Bernalillo County resident Randy Donk and the Gun Owners of America likens the executive order and public health emergency declaration to “martial law” and argues that it is a suspension of constitutional rights.

Does Grisham care about any of the constitutional aspects of her order or the possible repercussions?  Not likely.

The Guardian reports that New Mexico state representatives Stefani Lord and John Block are calling for the impeachment of Governor Grisham for issuing the ‘emergency’ order.  “This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” the statement from Lord read.

New Mexico’s legislature is almost two-thirds Democrat so there is little danger of the impeachment succeeding.

As SCOPE has often pointed out, Grisham gets her leftist credentials punched at no cost to her.  The state uses the taxpayers’ deep pockets to defend the order while those opposing it will have to self-finance.

And those on the Left (especially governors in other blue states like Kathy Hochul) will view this as a test case to see how far they can push their attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

Coming to a State Near You (2)  by Tom Reynolds

New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham declared a public health emergency that imposed a 30 day suspension of open and concealed carry of firearms’ laws, in Albuquerque.

She suspended the 2^nd Amendment! 

Clearly unconstitutional, the 30 day, short term of the order is crafted to avoid a judicial ruling against it. A temporary restraining order to put it on hold might be possible. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. The short term also makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the federal court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court, since it will be moot by that time.

It's New Mexico, why should we care?

Because, emergency orders are one of the methods used by the Left in New York State to restrict constitutional freedoms!  If it succeeds in New Mexico, the New York State gun grabbers will be further encouraged. 

Remember the SAFE Act?  It was passed under an emergency ‘Message of Necessity’ that bypassed normal legislative rules.  (It was such an emergency that some of it is just now being enacted 10 years later.)

Remember the COVID restrictions that were enacted as emergency procedures (and kept in place by Kathy Hochul long after the ‘emergency’ was over)?

Just claim ‘public health emergency’ and the unconstitutional actions of the left claim the high ground as necessary for the good of citizens - instead of being viewed as the power grabs that they are, in reality.  And no one understands better what is good for citizens than the ‘Rich men north of Richmond’ (and northeast of Binghamton.)

If gun violence is a public health emergency, what’s to stop Democrats (or anyone in power) from declaring ‘climate change’ an emergency and taking unconstitutional steps?  How about racism as an emergency?  Or transgenderism? 

And if these are emergencies, shouldn’t any comments against the government’s position be prohibited by temporarily suspending the 1^st Amendment protected right of Free Speech?  (Presidents John Adams and Woodrow Wilson enjoyed the benefits of ‘Sedition Acts’ to jail those who protested against their policies.)  

Laws have been crafted to give the government the flexibility to deal with emergencies and we can ‘trust’ the left to abuse any flexibility in their pursuit of absolute power. 

Not everything in New Mexico ends in 30 days and some of it should sound familiar to New York gun owners.  The public health order also directs:

·   The Regulation and Licensing Division to conduct monthly inspections of licensed firearm dealers to ensure compliance with all sales and storage laws.

·   The Department of Health to compile and issue a comprehensive report on gunshot victims at hospitals in New Mexico.

·   A prohibition on firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools. This also includes other places of education where children gather, such as parks.

Left unsaid is that this ignores the actual causes of violence. Legal gun owners are NOT contributing to these violent crimes. But those law-abiding gun owners who rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense are now defenseless.

In a press conference, Governor Grisham made some ‘interesting’ comments -straight from the Kathy Hochul guidebook - in defense of her actions.

A reporter asked: You took an oath to the Constitution. Isn’t it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license?

Grisham replied: With one exception, and that is if there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers.  (I checked my pocket Constitution and, would you believe, there is NO statement to that effect in the Constitution.)

Grisham added: “…what about their (the victims) constitutional rights? I took an oath to uphold those, too.”  (She obviously was not referring to the victim’s 2nd Amendment rights.)

And then Grisham added: No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute. There are restrictions on free speech.

We have a ‘liberal triple’ there: she believes her view trumps the view of the Supreme Court of the United States; her oath of office about upholding the U S Constitution is NOT absolute; and guess what’s next in her sights – the 1st Amendment.  

A reporter, who was obviously versed in 2nd Amendment, pointed out that, “There are already laws against the crime” and “Why not just do better law enforcement?”  Then the reporter clinched it with this question: Madam Governor, do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days?

Grisham replied in one word: “No.”

That one word says it all for gun grabbers everywhere; they are not after the criminals who cause crime but are intent on taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

If successful, why not go for 60 days?  Or 90 days?  Since the governor decides when the emergency ends, why should it end?

There are two possible unintended consequences which might prove beneficial to 2A supporters:

If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the 30 day period, New Mexico could supply a judicial vehicle to curtail future anti 2A efforts by Democrat governors of Democrat states who believe they are above the U S Constitution.  Of course, as evidenced by this emergency order, the gun grabbers tend to ignore the law when they are in a state run by Democrats.

Secondly, at some point, conservatives and others who believe in the Constitution, but are ‘conscientious objectors’ in the war on guns, may be pushed to the point where they are forced to do something drastic; like get involved and vote!

I know getting involved and voting is an extreme, drastic, unthinkable measure but the governors and legislators of blue states are attacking the 2nd Amendment from multiple approaches.  And legalities will not stand in their way since they have bottomless taxpayer pockets to fund their efforts while the law-abiding victims have limited financial resources.  The worst that can happen to the gun grabbers is that they return to ‘square one’ and try again.

What can happen to the ‘conscientious objectors’ is on that same day they were pushed too far, they will stand confused and ask, ’How did that happen?’

Coming To a State Near You  by Tom Reynolds

NY State Ammo Background Check set to begin the Wednesday, September 13, 2023.  (That’s THIS Wednesday)

There are two facets to the new regulations. 

• First is the involvement of the State Police as a “middleman” for the purchase of a gun. FFL’s will no longer contact the FBI directly through the NICS check system. A gun dealer must now go through the NY State Police. A new fee of $9.00 to the state will be paid by the gun purchaser.

• The second aspect of the new law requires a background check for the sale of all ammunition. Also going through the NY State Police.  Each transaction carries a new fee of $2.50 to the state. There is not expected to be a limit on the number of rounds of ammo a person can buy with each transaction.  (Yet!)

I’m guessing there may be a lot of ammo sold today and tomorrow! 

On Wednesday, it is also reported that at least 100 federally-licensed dealers in firearms in New York will be closed for business because they will be on strike.  Without dealers, there will be nothing for you to buy: No firearms; No ammunition. (By the way, that’s the point of the strict new ATF enforcements on gun dealers.)

The strike is happening to raise public awareness of unjust laws passed in the summer of 2022, which dealers are fighting in federal court.

On July 25, 2023, the New York State Police “Joint Terrorism Taskforce” started enforcing of those laws against dealers without notification to anyone. (Dealers are terrorists?)  On September 13, 2023, the NYSP will attempt to launch its new firearms and ammunition background checks and it will start to build a database of gun owners.  (Illegal under federal law.)

At high noon on September 13, you may wish to stand in solidarity with dealers fighting for your Second Amendment rights, your privacy, your Heller-McDonald- Bruen rights. If so, go to your local rod & gun club, your local range, your local sportsmen’s association property, and fire a round. (Do so in accordance with the instructions of your range safety officer.) Make this the “Shot Heard ‘Round the State II.” This was done ten years ago after the “SAFE Act.”

_______________________________________________________

Not to be outdone, California is always competing with New York to be the least constitutional state in the country.

California legislators have approved new taxes on firearms and ammunition.  The legislation, passed in the California Senate, would levy an 11-percent (11%) state tax on all firearm and ammo transactions, according to Fox News.

The text of the legislation criticizes the increasing revenue from firearms sales by dealers and gun sellers after the coronavirus pandemic.  “The firearm industry has also enjoyed record growth and profits for years,” the law reads.  (How absolutely capitalist.  The government creates a shortage by not enforcing laws and consumers want a product to protect themselves and someone produces that desired product and makes a profit.  Nothing could make the left angrier!)

It’s a sure bet that the legislation will be signed into law by uber-progressive Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until October 14th to veto or sign the legislation.  (Newsom has also proposed creating a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that would ban so-called assault weapons and enact a mandatory waiting period for gun purchases.)

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said his organization intends to challenge the policy in the courts, according to Fox. 

Voting is a constitutional right and poll taxes were aimed at stopping people from exercising that right; they were eventually declared unconstitutional.  Michel said, “It’s a poll tax. It’s a tax on exercising a constitutional right.”

The Northern Mariana Islands passed a $1000 excise tax on handguns, which was ruled unconstitutional in Murphy v. Guerrero (2016).  (Not that the leftists in California – or anywhere else – have ever let the U S Constitution stand in the way of their quest for absolute. uncontested power.)

California makes Hochul look like a piker with the size of their tax.  But count on Kathy to take on the challenge.

Letter to Hochul:   A SCOPE member sent in the following letter

Governor Kathy Hochul

NYS Capital Building                                                                    Albany, NY 12224                                                           
September 7, 2023

Dear Governor Hochul,

When the New York State Police began the pistol permit recertification process you had the option of recertifying by mail or electronically. Now everyone is limited to recertify electronically and you can no longer recertify by mail.

As a senior citizen I did not grow up with a computer or a smart phone. I am limited as to what I can do on a computer and have had problems with virus attacks, computer breakdowns and email problems where I have not been able to receive emails for several days. Those emails are lost when my computer is up and running again, I do not receive emails on a smart phone. I would prefer to recertify my pistol permit by mail because of the stated computer problems I have had in the past.

A recent Pew research survey shows that 64% of seniors over 65 have no internet connection, and they do not want to go to a friend or a library to use a computer. Many do not even know how to operate a computer.

The state sends me a notice of renewal for my motor vehicle registration, for my trailer registration, for my boat registration, They can and should do the same for my pistol permit recertification. I hope your office makes renewal by mail a reality when it comes to pistol permit recertification.

We have early voting in this state either in person or by mail in ballot. I also understand that your office is currently looking to expand mail in ballots for elections.  Mail in pistol permit recertification is something your office can make available, please do so.