S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education SCOPE BLOG

HYDE-SMITH, EZELL SIGN AMICUS BRIEF TO SCOTUS OPPOSING NEW YORK ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:06:33 GMT

HYDE-SMITH, EZELL SIGN AMICUS BRIEF TO SCOTUS OPPOSING NEW YORK ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW

Thursday, April 2, 2026

HYDE-SMITH, EZELL SIGN AMICUS BRIEF TO SCOTUS OPPOSING NEW YORK ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and U.S. Representative Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) are among 77 lawmakers who have signed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Second Circuit ruling and uphold the Second Amendment by preventing New York from bypassing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Signed by 22 U.S. Senators and 55 U.S. Representatives, the brief argues that a New York state public nuisance law improperly undermines protections established by Congress in the PLCAA, which generally shields gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when criminals misuse firearms that were legally sold. The New York law allows lawsuits against gun industry members based on broad claims that they contributed to conditions endangering public safety.

“Our brief is part of the ongoing work to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens from leftist states run by anti-gun activists. These states shouldn’t be allowed to erode the constitutional protections established by Congress by law,” said Senator Hyde-Smith, author of the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection (GRIP) Act.

“Law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be undermined by backdoor attempts to target lawful manufacturers,” said Congressman Ezell. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ensures firearm manufacturers are not held liable for the criminal actions of others. Efforts to bypass that law threaten both the Second Amendment and the stability of an industry that supports American jobs and constitutional freedoms. I stand with my colleagues in urging the Supreme Court to uphold federal law and protect the rights of responsible gun owners.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Representative Russell Fry (R-S.C.) led the amicus brief, which supports the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s petition seeking certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Read excerpts from the amicus brief below and the full brief here.

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures law-abiding and peaceable American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. But no one besides accomplished gunsmiths could exercise that right if a citizen could not lawfully purchase a firearm because the firearm industry had become insolvent. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to prevent that outcome by placing firearm manufacturers on equal footing with other American manufacturers. Under the Act, so long as a firearm is properly made and properly transferred into commercial channels, a manufacturer is generally not liable if a criminal later misuses that firearm in the commission of a crime. In particular, the PLCAA forecloses the imposition of liability under flexible and indistinct common-law standards that provide firearm manufacturers with no notice of the precise conduct that is required or to be avoided. Indeed, that was the statute’s core purpose.

“The State of New York is unhappy with any impediments to its ability to bankrupt lawful arms manufacturers based on the actions of New York criminals whom the State is unable or unwilling to control. In the State’s view—adopted by the Second Circuit—the PLCAA is a paper tiger that any state legislature may tame by simply codifying vague and unpredictable common-law standards and explicitly applying the new code provisions only to the firearms industry.

“The State and the court below are too clever by half. This case presents an issue of exceptional importance with regard to the states’ ability to circumvent the preemptive force of federal legislation. The PLCAA is not a mere Kabuki feint designed to encourage its own circumvention. Rather, the Act was designed to, and does, preempt efforts to impose hazy common-law liability standards whether or not codified by a state legislature to target the firearms industry. This Court should intervene now before the Second Circuit’s decision, directly or through its influence, further undermines the Second Amendment and congressional will.”

Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:07:32 GMT

Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment

Ammoland Inc. Posted on March 30, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

New York’s ban on body armor is now facing a direct constitutional challenge that goes right to the heart of the Second Amendment.

In Heeter v. James, an ongoing 2024 federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, plaintiffs Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition are challenging New York’s body armor ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law has criminalized the purchase and acquisition of defensive gear that falls within the plain text of the right to “keep and bear Arms.”

As the motion puts it, “body armor is commonly owned for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” and New York’s law therefore cannot survive under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The filing opens by stating that New York’s law “prohibits the purchase, acquisition, or sale of any ‘protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,’ by anyone who is not a member of several ‘eligible professions.’” In other words, ordinary law-abiding New Yorkers are barred from buying body armor unless the state has decided their job title is important enough. The plaintiffs say that violates the rights of citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs,” the same kind of language the Supreme Court used in Bruen when it rejected New York’s old carry regime.

The motion leans heavily on Heller’s discussion of the word “arms,” reminding the court that the Supreme Court itself said the term included not only “weapons of offence,” but also “armour of defence.”

From there, the plaintiffs walk through historical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, Blackstone, the Assize of Arms, and the Statute of Winchester to argue that armor has long been understood as part of the class of protected “arms.” The filing says the historical record “confirm[s] that the Supreme Court was correct” and that “‘Arms’ encompasses body armor.” That is the foundation of the whole case. If body armor is an arm, then the Second Amendment is implicated from the start.

According to the plaintiffs, New York expanded the definition of body armor through the Concealed Carry Improvement Act so broadly that it now covers “any product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,” including steel plates, bulletproof backpacks, and “inconspicuous garments” like bullet-resistant sweatshirts and flannels. This is not a narrow restriction aimed at criminals wearing armor while committing violent felonies. It is a broad ban on defensive products that ordinary people may want for their own protection.

The plaintiffs back that up with real examples. One named plaintiff, Heeter, says he wants to buy body armor for lawful purposes, “including to protect himself in the event of civil unrest similar to the riots of 2020.” Another, Wurtenberg, wants armor for his late-night commute through downtown Rochester and to incorporate into his range gear “to prevent accidental injury.”

Neither man is in one of the state’s favored “eligible professions,” so both are barred from acquiring body armor, even though the motion says they seek it only for lawful self-defense and safety purposes.

The motion also takes aim at the state’s claim that body armor is somehow outside ordinary constitutional protection because criminals have used it. New York reportedly justified the ban in part by pointing to the body armor worn by the Buffalo mass murderer. But the plaintiffs argue that argument collapses under scrutiny. The filing cites FBI data and says that “less than 5% of perpetrators in mass-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2019 wore body armor.” That is a devastating statistic for the state’s narrative.

The plaintiffs then drive the point home by noting that handguns are used in crimes far more often than body armor, yet handguns remain unquestionably protected under the Second Amendment. A criminal misuse argument cannot erase constitutional protection for an item commonly used by law-abiding people.

And that is another major piece of the motion: common use.

The plaintiffs argue that body armor is “in common use for lawful purposes,” which, under Heller and Bruen, is a major constitutional marker. They cite market data showing tens of millions of dollars in civilian body armor sales, a robust civilian market, and more than 70 manufacturers serving that demand. The motion says American civilians spent $41.9 million on body armor in 2022, and cites additional estimates showing civilian expenditures continued rising in 2023, 2024, and 2025. It also stresses that body armor is legal in 49 states, making New York the outlier, not the rule. As the brief puts it, “New York is the first state to ban body armor for law-abiding citizens.” That is exactly the kind of modern outlier status that has become increasingly hard to defend in the post-Bruen world.

The most effective part of the filing may be its treatment of danger. The state’s best chance in a case like this is to argue that body armor can be banned as “dangerous and unusual.” The plaintiffs say that argument fails on both halves.

First, they say body armor is not dangerous. “It is exclusively defensive,” the motion argues. It does not fire a projectile, does not slash, stab, bludgeon, or explode. Its only function is to protect the wearer. The filing even notes that the Transportation Security Administration allows airline passengers to carry body armor in their bags. It cites case law recognizing that “wearing body armor is not an inherently threatening act” and can instead be “an act of self-defense.” That is hard to get around. New York is trying to treat protective equipment as though it were some uniquely menacing weapon, but the plaintiffs’ point is simple and powerful: armor protects, it does not attack.

Second, the plaintiffs argue body armor is not unusual. Quite the opposite. They say it is common historically, common today, common across the country, and common in civilian commerce. The motion points to historical militia laws requiring certain citizens to furnish armor, to widespread availability of bullet-resistant vests by the Civil War era, and to modern ownership and sales trends.

The filing sums it up this way: body armor is “common categorically,” “common numerically,” and “common jurisdictionally.”

The filing also spends time showing that the law is not just some dead statute sitting on the books. According to the motion, New York officials celebrated the ban, state police warned there would be “zero tolerance” for violations, and the law has already been enforced through arrests. The plaintiffs say the legal market for body armor in New York has effectively been wiped out because sellers face both criminal penalties and civil fines if they sell to someone outside the approved professions. That matters because it shows the injury here is concrete and ongoing. This is not a hypothetical challenge brought against a dormant law. It is a live fight over a ban that the state intends to enforce.

At bottom, the plaintiffs are asking the court to apply the Second Amendment the way the Supreme Court said it must be applied. Once conduct falls within the plain text, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that justifies the regulation. The motion argues New York cannot do that here because “there exists no American tradition” of banning the purchase, transfer, or possession of defensive armor by ordinary citizens. It says there were “no American legislative body” restrictions of that kind from the Founding through well after Reconstruction, and that no pre-1900 American armor bans existed at all. If that historical claim holds, New York is standing on very thin ice.

The plaintiffs’ conclusion: “the Court should grant judgment in Plaintiffs favor, declare the Body Armor Ban unconstitutional, and enjoin its enforcement.”

New York will almost certainly argue that body armor is different from weapons, that the state has a strong public-safety interest, and that armor can embolden criminals in violent encounters. But this motion is serious, direct, and grounded in the same constitutional framework that has already knocked down a growing list of modern gun-control laws.

If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ central premise that body armor is part of the protected class of “arms,” New York is going to have a very difficult time explaining why ordinary citizens can be barred from buying purely defensive equipment that is legal in the other 49 states.

The next step is now in the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where the judge will decide whether New York’s body armor ban can survive under Heller and Bruen. After the state files its response, the court will determine whether the law can be struck down on summary judgment or whether the case needs to move further. A win for the plaintiffs would block enforcement of one of the most aggressive body armor laws in the country. A win for New York would only push the constitutional fight into its next round. Either way, Heeter v. James is now a case gun owners and civil-liberties advocates should be watching closely.

New York Agrees to Stop Requiring Social Media Disclosures for Gun Permits

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:37:00 GMT

New York Agrees to Stop Requiring Social Media Disclosures for Gun Permits

Jake Fogleman

March 17, 2026 5:26 pm

New York will no longer enforce a controversial provision of its strict requirements for concealed carry permit applicants, according to a new settlement agreement.

The agreement was filed on Monday in the Northern District of New York in the case Antonyuk v. James. It bars the state from enforcing its social media disclosure requirement–at least against the plaintiffs in the case.

“The State Defendants consent to the entry of an injunction against their enforcement of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(l)(o)(iv), which requires applicants for a concealed carry license to provide ‘a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in’ N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(l)(o)(ii), against any Plaintiff,” the settlement agreement reads. “The Superintendent shall ensure that the PPB-3 license application form does not include language requiring social media information.”

The settlement chips away at New York’s trend-setting Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). It’s another victory for gun-rights activists who’ve fought the law in court after it was passed back in 2022. However, many of the CCIA’s restrictions remain in good standing as other legal challenges continue to work their way up the federal court system.

The law, adopted shortly after the Supreme Court held the state’s previous concealed carry legal regime violated the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, imposed new hurdles on carry permit applicants and designated dozens of public locations off-limits to lawful gun carry. It also inspired similarly impacted states like New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Hawaii to follow suit with Bruen-response laws of their own—each of which has been hotly contested in court over the last few years.

Monday’s settlement agreement stipulates that the injunction against New York’s social media disclosure requirement will remain in place unless and until the state legislature repeals it outright. The deal further resolves that portion of the lawsuit without a ruling on the merits.

Under the terms of the deal, the individual plaintiff who challenged the requirement is dismissed from the suit. Meanwhile, the remaining plaintiffs agreed not to raise future challenges to the social media requirement.

New York state did not concede that the provision is unconstitutional, and the agreement will carry no precedential effect for other legal challenges.

At the same time, the bulk of the lawsuit will proceed. The remaining plaintiffs will continue to challenge other parts of the CCIA, including the law’s extensive list of “sensitive locations” where carrying a firearm is prohibited. Those include places such as public parks, public transportation, theaters, and establishments that serve alcohol.

The battle over the law’s restrictions has ping-ponged around the federal court system ever since US District Judge Glenn Suddaby first blocked most of them in a November 2022 ruling. The Second Circuit eventually reversed most of that injunction while keeping in place Suddaby’s order blocking the social media requirement and a few other restrictions. The Supreme Court has twice declined to get involved in the case, first doing so in 2024 when it granted, vacated, and remanded the challenge back to the Second Circuit to be reconsidered in light of its US v. Rahimi decision. When the plaintiffs again asked the High Court to review the Second Circuit’s essentially unchanged second ruling, the Court flatly denied the petition last April.

The case now remains in Suddaby’s court for an eventual decision on the merits of the Second Amendment challenge.

Monday’s settlement agreement is not the first time New York has tactically retreated from one of the CCIA’s restrictions in the face of legal scrutiny. After multiple rulings against the state’s total ban on guns in places of worship—including in Antonyuk—New York lawmakers quietly amended the CCIA in May 2023 to exempt “persons responsible for security” from the ban.

Furthermore, though it has declined to involve itself directly in the status of New York’s gun carry restrictions, the Supreme Court will soon issue a decision on the legal fate of a Hawaii gun-carry restriction that mirrors New York’s law. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court will determine whether lawmakers can ban by default licensed gun carry on private property accessible to the general public, such as retail stores and restaurants. New York became the first state in the country to enact such a policy when it adopted the CCIA in 2022.

The Court heard oral arguments in Wolford in January and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.

Blakeman Accepts Republican Nomination for Governor, Pledges to End Hochul’s Tax Hikes and Restore Affordability and Public Safety

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:56:14 GMT

Blakeman Accepts Republican Nomination for Governor, Pledges to End Hochul’s Tax Hikes and Restore Affordability and Public Safety

February 11, 2026

Garden City, NY — Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman today accepted the Republican nomination for Governor of New York, delivering a sweeping indictment of Kathy Hochul’s record and pledging to fix Hochul’s affordability and public safety crisis.

“I am honored to receive this nomination to be your next Governor of the great State of New York,” Blakeman said. “Millions of New Yorkers rejected Kathy Hochul four years ago, and after four more years of soaring taxes, rising crime, and reckless spending, families simply cannot afford her failed leadership any longer.”

Blakeman cited more than $8 billion in tax hikes under Hochul, which has given New York the highest tax burden in the nation. He pointed to electric bills that are approximately 50 percent higher than the national average, as a result of the Hochul Administration’s 36 utility rate hikes, blocked energy infrastructure projects, and costly green energy mandates that have left nearly 70 percent of some utility bills going toward fees, delivery charges, and state-imposed costs.

He also sharply criticized congestion pricing, which charges drivers up to $27 to enter Manhattan. “In Hochul’s New York, you now pay a tax just to drive on a public road you already paid for,” Blakeman said. “And if she gets four more years, congestion pricing won’t stop in Manhattan — it will expand.”

Blakeman emphasized that while middle-class families, seniors, and small businesses struggle with rising costs, Hochul has prioritized billions in spending on hotel rooms, prepaid debit cards, and benefits for illegal migrants. “That is not right,” Blakeman said. “What Kathy Hochul spends on waste, Medicaid fraud, and benefits for illegal migrants who’ve been here for fifteen minutes, I will redirect to better schools, roads, hospitals, infrastructure, and meaningful tax relief for the people who built this state.”

On public safety, Blakeman slammed Hochul for siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens by signing laws that release dangerous inmates, erasing criminal records, weakening parole standards, refusing to repeal cashless bail, and failing to fix the “Raise the Age” law as youth crime rises. “Kathy Hochul has turned her back on the rule of law,” Blakeman said. “As Governor, I will stand with our police, not against them. I will fight to keep violent criminals and cop-killers behind bars, because the safety of our children and neighborhoods demands it.”

Blakeman contrasted Hochul’s record with his own as Nassau County Executive, where he stopped a $150 million tax hike, has not raised taxes, secured seven bond upgrades, and worked with law enforcement to make Nassau County the safest county in America. He hired more than 600 police and corrections officers and invested heavily in public safety. “Imagine bringing that level of fiscal discipline and commitment to safety to the entire state,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman also pledged to cut middle-class income taxes, roll back Albany’s “hidden taxes and mandates” driving up energy costs, defend Second Amendment rights, and protect girls’ sports by ensuring biological males cannot compete against female athletes.

Blakeman emphasized that service is personal to him. The son of two World War II veterans — his mother served in the U.S. Army and his father in the Merchant Marines — Blakeman has long advocated for veterans. As County Executive, he partnered with Tunnel to Towers to expand housing for homeless veterans. “No one who fought for America should ever be without a home,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman also reflected on his time as a Port Authority Commissioner during the September 11th attacks, when his nephew, Court Officer Tommy Jergens, was killed in the line of duty. “I’ve seen what happens when government fails, and I’ve seen what leadership matters,” he said. “Now my grandchildren are growing up here. This is their home. I refuse to accept that New York’s best days are behind us.”

Blakeman recognized his running mates, Joseph Hernandez for State Comptroller, Saritha Komatireddy for Attorney General, and Todd Hood for Lieutenant Governor. He praised Hernandez’s business background and personal story as a Cuban immigrant, Komatireddy’s experience as a federal prosecutor and national security leader, and Hood’s 22-year career in law enforcement and leadership within the New York State Sheriffs’ Association.

“Together, we will bring fiscal responsibility, accountability, and public safety back to New York,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman concluded by pledging to serve as “a governor for all people — regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, abilities, or lifestyle” and vowed to restore opportunity, affordability, and pride in the Empire State.

“We can fix this crisis. We can make New York affordable again. And we can make it safe again,” Blakeman said. “But it will take leadership that puts New Yorkers first. That’s the choice this November.”

All-Call for Records Can you help me reach Dealers in Firearms?

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:07:26 GMT

All-Call for Records

Can you help me reach Dealers in Firearms?

Paloma A. Capanna, Attorney & Policy Analyst
106-B Professional Park Drive
Beaufort, NC 28516
as well as Keene Valley, ADK, New York

It’s time to begin statewide data collection, and I need help from you and every Dealer in Firearms you know. Perhaps you would forward this e-mail? Perhaps you could print it out and take it to your local gun shop? Your networking help is of need.

#1. I’m putting out the ALL-CALL for every “checklist” of the NYS Police I can get my hands on. Whether it is blank or it is filled-in, will you please ask your local gun shop to e-mail it to me as a PDF with the date the Officer was at the shop? Please ask the dealer to also include a best phone number, if they’re willing to chat with me for a few minutes about it. Please ask the dealer to put the name of the FFL in the re line and e-mail to Paloma@CapannaLaw.com.

If you are unfamiliar with the NYSP “checklists,” several examples are already available on my law office website HERE.

#2. I’m also looking for every “subpoena” of the NY Attorney General demanding records or testimony relating to the new laws under NY General Business Law s.875, or, whatever else she might be demanding from our industry since June 1, 2022. Same request to e-mail.

If you are unfamiliar with the NY Attorney General “subpoenas,” an example is already available on my law office website HERE.

Thank you! - Paloma

FPC Prevails in New York Non-Resident Carry Ban Lawsuit, Encourages People to Apply for a License

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:07:07 GMT

FPC Prevails in New York Non-Resident Carry Ban Lawsuit, Encourages People to Apply for a License

The OUTDOOR WIRE Friday, February 13, 2026

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that the parties have reached an agreement to successfully resolve the plaintiffs' federal lawsuit challenging the New York state and county defendants' laws, policies, and practices banning firearm carry by residents of other states, Shaffer v. Quattrone. FPC filed the case in November 2024, arguing that people "do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state."

Now, as a result of the FPC lawsuit and the plaintiffs' settlement with the State of New York, the State now expressly holds the position that in-state residency or employment is not required for licensure and clearly posted this confirmation on its website, which is now obligated to state (in relevant part):

Is New York residency or employment required to apply for a firearm license?

No. New York law does not require residency or in-state employment to apply for a firearm license. While the Penal Law directs applicants who live or work in New York to file their firearm application in the county of residence or principal place of employment, this provision does not exclude nonresidents from applying. Licensing officers may accept applications from nonresidents, and residency is not among the eligibility criteria for being issued a firearm license. Applications from nonresidents who do not live or work in New York should be evaluated under the same standards as all others.

"This is a great development in our ongoing efforts to restore the right to bear arms throughout the United States," said FPC President Brandon Combs. "New York is the third state in a row, following our wins in California and Louisiana, where we've eliminated carry bans on non-residents and shown that rights don't stop at state borders. Millions of peaceable people will now have the ability and opportunity to exercise their right to carry in these states. We're eager to continue liberating gun owners and restoring freedom, so we're already planning our next wave of cases to that end."

As part of the case's resolution, the Chautauqua County, Steuben County, Tioga County, and Orange County defendants have each agreed to begin accepting firearm applications from people who do not live in New York. And while this should make clear that licensing officers statewide should now be accepting non-resident carry permit applications, FPC has established a special New York Carry Hotline for people to report carry license denials to the FPC Law team so that any denials can be evaluated for potential litigation. Those denied a New York carry license should report it to FPC at firearmspolicy.org/ny-carry-hotline.

"Anyone who wants to carry in New York should go apply, and if they're denied, we hope they'll let us know using our New York Carry Hotline," noted FPC's Combs. "The good outcome here should be the end of this issue, but in a state like New York, there may be some licensing authorities and judges in the process who decide to continue resisting the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent. So while we hope they all get the message and start issuing carry licenses without delay, we won't hesitate to drag them into court and force them to if that's what it takes to protect peaceable gun owners and restore liberty."

Filings in Shaffer v. Quattrone can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/shaffer. FPC is joined in this case by four individual FPC members. The plaintiffs are represented by Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.

About Firearms Policy Coalition: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC's legal division, FPC Law, is the nation's leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:03:13 GMT

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill

Ammoland Inc. Posted on February 12, 2026 by Alan Gottlieb

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding lawmakers in the New Hampshire House for approving legislation allowing carry on college campuses by prohibiting colleges and universities from banning guns.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb took issue with opponents of the measure who have cited tragic campus shootings, such as the one at Brown University, as a good reason to prevent students or visitors from carrying defensive sidearms for their personal safety.

“Their logic is all wrong,” said Gottlieb. “Those incidents occurred on campuses where gun-free policies exist, leaving students and faculty unable to defend themselves. In an environment where people have not only a right but the means to fight back, it levels the field against evil doers, whether they are criminals or crazy people. We encourage people to support House Bill 1793 and tell their lawmakers to pass the measure.

“Colleges and universities can no longer masquerade as Ivory Tower institutions that are immune from attacks by evil people who belong either behind bars or in an institution,” he observed. “What once may have been considered a manifestation of cultural elitism has—because of Brown University—been shown to be a deadly case of self-delusion.

“We see one opponent of House Bill 1793 offer the argument that half of school mass shootings are done by students and the other half by campus visitors,” Gottlieb added. “What difference does it make who launches an attack? What can make a difference is whether one or more intended victims can immediately fight back and stop some madman in his tracks, thus saving innocent lives in the process.

“We’ve seen the results of an institutional ‘cower-in-fear’ philosophy,” Gottlieb concluded, “and it has been devastating. The time has come for common sense to prevail, and that includes putting an end to policies which essentially create risk-free environments for dangerous individuals to victimize young adults and their teachers solely to perpetuate an indefensible notion that people should leave their right of self-defense at a school’s property line.”

About CCRKBA

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

GOP challenger Michael Henry drops NY attorney general bid to unseat Letitia James

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:11:43 GMT

GOP challenger Michael Henry drops NY attorney general bid to unseat Letitia James

Story by Vaughn Golden

ALBANY – Republican Michael Henry is dropping his bid to unseat New York Attorney General Letitia James, his campaign confirmed to The Post Thursday evening.

Henry, who carried 45% of the vote when he unsuccessfully ran against James in 2022, did not see a path to victory, a source familiar with his thinking said.

“Over the last six weeks, really since Congresswoman [Elise] Stefanik dropped out, he has been feeling a sense that we were not well-positioned for victory,” the source said.

Henry did not want to be a “sacrificial lamb,” the source said — especially as he faced a likely primary race, despite touting widespread support amongst GOP bigwigs behind the scenes ahead of the party’s nominating convention next month.

“The top of the ticket and the state party is not prepared to fight in November,” the source added.

Henry had been endorsed by Stefanik before she abandoned her gubernatorial bid after failing to secure President Trump’s highly coveted endorsement when Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman entered the race.

His exit from the race leaves former federal prosecutor Saritha Komatireddy and crypto lawyer Khurram Dara seeking the GOP nod.

Henry plans to continue raising money to help vulnerable Republicans in New York’s swing districts, the source said.

New York’s Proposed 3D Printing Law Is Doomed To Fail

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:17:48 GMT

New York’s Proposed 3D Printing Law Is Doomed To Fail

Ammoland Inc. Posted on January 20, 2026 by John Crump

New York Governor Kathy Hochul unveiled a package of proposals as part of her State of the State agenda to combat the rise of untraceable “ghost guns,” with a particular focus on those produced via 3D printing.

Dubbed a “first-in-the-nation” initiative, the legislation would require 3D printer manufacturers to equip devices sold in New York with software that can detect and block the production of firearms or their components. Additional measures include criminalizing the unlicensed possession, sale, or distribution of digital blueprints (CAD files) for guns, requiring gun makers to design pistols that are resistant to easy conversion into machine guns (e.g., via “Glock switches”), and mandating that law enforcement report recovered 3D-printed firearms to a statewide database.

Hochul framed the proposals as essential to closing the “plastic pipeline” of illegal weapons, building on New York’s already stringent gun laws. She highlighted a reported 1,000% increase in 3D-printed gun recoveries over recent years and cited cases like the alleged use of a 3D-printed gun in high-profile crimes. Supporters, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, praised the measures for addressing an “emerging threat” that undermines progress in reducing gun violence—shootings statewide hit record lows in 2025.

The core of Hochul’s plan is to force 3D printer companies to integrate safeguard technology into their firmware or software. This process could involve algorithms that scan sliced print files for matches against a database of known firearm designs and halt jobs deemed suspicious. Proponents argue that this multilayered detection, potentially at the slicer software, cloud management, or printer level, would deter casual production and make it harder to manufacture unserialized firearms at home.

Yet, despite the ambitious rhetoric, this approach is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to achieve its goals. Technical, practical, legal, and enforcement challenges render it ineffective against determined individuals, while imposing burdens on legitimate users and manufacturers.

First, the proposal applies only to new 3D printers sold in New York after its enactment. Millions of existing printers nationwide, and thousands already in New York homes, workshops, and schools, remain unaffected. Hobbyists, makers, and potential bad actors can continue using older models without restrictions. Even for new printers, compliance depends on manufacturers based outside New York (many of them overseas) agreeing to region-specific firmware, which creates logistical and economic hurdles.

More critically, any built-in blocking software is easily circumvented. Most consumer 3D printers run open-source firmware like Marlin or Klipper, which users routinely modify, flash, or replace. Tech-savvy individuals, precisely those most likely to pursue homemade firearms, can disable or remove detection features in minutes. Offline printing via USB or SD card bypasses cloud-based checks, and altered files (e.g., slightly modified geometries or disguised as innocuous objects) evade signature-based detection. As experts note, this is a classic “whack-a-mole” problem: databases of banned designs quickly become outdated as new variants proliferate.

Historical precedents underscore this futility. Efforts to restrict digital firearm files, such as the 2013 controversy over Defense Distributed’s Liberator pistol, failed spectacularly. Files spread via torrent sites, decentralized platforms, and dark web repositories beyond any single jurisdiction’s reach. Court battles have affirmed that code is speech under the First Amendment, thereby protecting blueprints as expression. Hochul’s criminalization of unlicensed possession of CAD files invites similar constitutional challenges, likely leading to the striking down of broad restrictions on information sharing.

Enforcement poses another insurmountable barrier. Detecting private 3D printing requires invasive monitoring, home raids based on suspicious filament purchases, or monitoring online activity? New York’s law would struggle to police decentralized file sharing globally. Criminals motivated enough to build untraceable weapons won’t be deterred by software hurdles they can hack around, while law-abiding makers face unnecessary restrictions on printing benign objects.

Critics from Second Amendment advocates, including the 3D printing community, argue the plan infringes on rights without addressing the root causes of crime. Most illegal firearms stem from theft, trafficking, or straw purchases, not home printing. Data shows privately manufactured firearms (PMF), while rising, remain a fraction of recovered crime guns. Punishing printer manufacturers and users burdens innovation in a technology used for prototyping, education, medicine, and art.

Moreover, the proposal risks unintended consequences. Forcing detection tech could drive users to unregulated imported printers or DIY builds, undermining safety standards elsewhere. Manufacturers like Prusa, Bambu Labs, or Creality might limit sales in New York or challenge the mandate legally, citing interstate commerce issues.

Hochul’s initiative reflects a broader trend: politicians targeting emerging technology to signal tough-on-crime stances amid a decline in overall violence. New York’s shootings dropped dramatically under existing laws, yet the focus on 3D printing amplifies a niche threat. Similar past attempts, bans on 80% gun kits or file distribution, slowed but never stopped proliferation, as innovation outpaces regulation.

Ultimately, information and technology cannot be fully controlled in a free society. Firearm designs have circulated in books and diagrams for centuries; digital files are no different. Determined actors will always find ways to modify printers, source files anonymously, or use alternative methods like CNC milling. Hochul’s plan may score political points and inconvenience some, but it won’t meaningfully curb the production of 3D-printed guns. True public safety lies in targeted enforcement against criminals, not futile battles against bits and bytes.

Not to be outdone by New York, Washington state has introduced a nearly identical and equally flawed law.

Armed Americans fight back:

Tue, 30 Dec 2025 14:08:50 GMT

Armed Americans fight back: Inside 2025’s
most gripping self-defense shootings across the US

Church security guard, donut shop owner, homeowners among those who used guns to stop would-be attackers

By Julia Bonavita Fox News
Published December 30, 2025 8:00am EST

FBI, National Safety Council Data: 33 Times More People Die from Falls in a Single Year than in 24 Years of Mass Shootings

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 20:19:58 GMT

FBI, National Safety Council Data: 33 Times More People Die from Falls in a Single Year than in 24 Years of Mass Shootings

BY AWR Hawkins12 Dec 2025

FBI stats show 1,432 people were killed in “active shooter incidents” from 2000-2024, and the National Safety Council reported 47,026 people were killed in falls in 2023 alone.

According to the FBI, there were “556 incidents” in the timeframe of 2000-2024, resulting in 1,432 killed and 2,489 wounded.

The year with the highest number of casualties during the studied timeframe was 2017, with 734 deaths. The second highest year was 2016, with 214 deaths.

But figures from the National Safety Council show a whopping 47,026 people died from falls in 2023. Moreover, the National Safety Council noted “more than 8.8 million people treated in emergency rooms for fall-related injuries in 2023.”

Additionally in 2023, the National Safety Council pointed out “there were 100,304 deaths from preventable poisoning.”

In summary: 1,432 deaths in mass shootings, or “active shooter incidents,” during the timeframe 2000-2024 versus 47,026 deaths from falls in 2023 alone. Over 100,000 deaths occurred in 2023 due to poisoning.

I just took Everytown’s online firearm training course … by Lee Williams

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 22:10:05 GMT

I just took Everytown’s online firearm training course … by Lee Williams

Everytown’s new firearm training classes are about as honest and realistic as the journalism produced by its paid staffers at the Trace. In fact, the amount of anti-gun propaganda produced by Everytown’s Train Smart instructors may actually exceed the anti-gun propaganda shoveled out by the kids at the Trace. Suffice it to say, it’s a close race.

The fun began with a 1.5-hour video class called “The Smart Guide to Buying a Gun.” Cost was $20. Students can take the class live or on-demand. There are two additional classes, including an 8-hour trip to the range, which you watch from home.

Nellis and Jake were the instructors. None of Everytown’s trainers provide their last names, which is very telling. Most real instructors provide all of their training and experience in addition to their full names.

Nellis, according to her bio, is “a mother and advocate, she is committed to building safer environments and believes that all children deserve a future free from gun violence.”

Jake’s bio is about as bad: “As an instructor, Jake strives to create welcoming spaces where everyone can learn to feel safer and more confident with firearms.”

Neither of the instructors ever mentioned what their kids actually deserve or how they create “welcoming spaces.”

Besides their missing last names, none of Everytown’s training staff list their actual instructor credentials or even where they were trained, but they are all beautiful people and very diverse, which is probably much more important to the folks at Everytown than their CVs.

Before Nellis and Jake were even on screen, Everytown unleashed a massive liability warning.

“By participating in this training and viewing this recording, you acknowledge and agree that Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and its affiliated organizations are not responsible for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising from, in connection with, or as a result of your use of firearms, and you agree to release and hold harmless Everytown of Gun Safety Support Fund from any claims related to your participation in the training. If you require specific advice or expertise about your use, possession or ownership of a firearm, please consult a qualified professional or consult your local law enforcement.”

Does this mean Everytown’s firearms instructors aren’t “qualified professionals?” Can’t real firearm training serve as a defense if you ever have to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones?

Instructor Jake began by cautioning viewers that no students should have access to a firearm during the course.

“We’ll be talking about tough topics like firearm homicides and suicides,” he warned the class.

If anyone wanted to learn more about gun ownership than Jake and Nellis were willing to teach, they were told to go to Everytown.org.

The instructor duo then presented an incredibly fictional group of statistics, which the site claimed came from the “Annals of Internal Medicine and American Journal of Public Health.”

By owning a gun, you double your chances of dying by homicide, they falsely claimed. And access to a firearm inside a home triples your chances and everyone in your home’s chances of dying by suicide. These, however, were not the worst claims.

“The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the woman will be killed,” Nellis claimed. “And according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, when a male abuser has access to a firearm, the risk that he’s going to shoot and kill a female increases by 1,000 percent.”

Everytown has always had problems with the truth. Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have decried hundreds of school shootings, but when the shootings are actually examined, they consist of a list of incidents that often doesn’t involve actual bad guys or students or schools or guns.

One so-called shooting involved a school bus being hit with a BB. Others involved negligent discharges. Many never even happened during school hours. When the list was examined thoroughly, many of the claims were found to be seriously overinflated.

Nellis, too, had real problems with overinflation, in addition to numbers, tactics and the truth.

“Since 2020, guns have been the leading cause of death for children age 1 to 17,” she falsely claimed.

All weapons, she said, should be kept unloaded—period. Her reasoning was nonsensical.

“That might be a little controversial. It might even defeat the point but hold on. Every second matters when you need a gun. Some people believe it’s okay to keep a gun on a nightstand. If you’re moving so fast that you don’t have time to access your gun, you likely don’t have time to confirm your target before shooting. Once that bullet leaves your gun, it ain’t coming back, and you may actually live in a state that requires you to lock up your gun,” she said.

Jake even brought racist police officers into the training.

“Police interactions may be risky for black gun owners,” he said. “We want to acknowledge that. Gather more information about police in your area.”

The two instructors stressed the false benefits of home security systems—alarms, signs, decals, doorbell cameras, fences, landscaping and other external barriers such as cacti and thorny plants. These are great ideas, until the bad guy enters the victim’s home.

Their solution?

“Adopt a dog,” they said. “A lot of self-defense instructors say dogs are better defense against intruders than guns. Consider getting a dog.”

When the instructor duo described the types of guns available, the forgot to even mention the country’s most popular rifle. The video does not show a single photo of an AR or any other popular semi-automatic rifle.

What Nellis and Jake excelled at was parroting small doses of real gun safety information without giving the author the credit they deserve. They showed a quick video that stressed Col. Jeff Cooper’s Four General Firearm Safety Rules. The good colonel, of course, was never mentioned.

Neither Nellis nor Jake ever mentioned how the Four Rules became standardized or how they progress logically from one to another. Instead, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s kids acted like they invented the rules themselves, which is about what you’d expect.

Truth be known, Col. Cooper’s rules were about the only realistic information offered during the entire hour-and-a-half of training time.

This video tried to scare students. Guns are dangerous and should be unloaded, disassembled and locked up, the instructors repeatedly said.

Everytown’s so-called training course is chock-full of fear, which they use to scare folks, so they won’t ever consider buying a firearm, much less carrying one. As you’d expect, this makes it propaganda—anti-gun propaganda.

It is definitely not firearm training. It’s not even close.

Stop lying about guns. Start getting serious about crime in New York | Opinion

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:50:55 GMT

Stop lying about guns. Start getting serious about crime in New York | Opinion

Mike Lawler Special to the USA TODAY Network

Regarding "Lawler and Trump reward the gun lobby. NY will pay the price," lohud.com, Aug. 15:

Beth Davidson’s recent column reads like it was ripped straight from the far-left gun control lobby’s playbook, and is filled with the usual scare tactics, deliberate distortions and flat-out lies we see too often in politics. Respectfully, Davidson either doesn’t know what she is talking about or is willfully misleading the people of the Hudson Valley. Either way, I won’t let those lies go unanswered.

Let’s start with her central attack: the legislation I supported to remove the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Davidson calls these “silencers” and claims they make it impossible to hear gunfire. Wrong on both counts. They are suppressors, and just like a car muffler, they reduce sound but do not eliminate it. They protect hearing, make hunting and sport shooting safer and less disruptive and are rarely used in crimes. That’s why many European countries encourage their use, and why even municipalities in New York hire sharpshooters with suppressors to manage deer overpopulation.

And here’s what Davidson left out: suppressors remain tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act. Purchasing one still requires two separate FBI background checks, ATF registration, fingerprinting, photographs and notification to local law enforcement. No law-abiding New Yorker is suddenly walking out of a gun shop with a “silencer” like in a Hollywood movie. The only thing this change did was stop penalizing responsible citizens with a $200 tax. Suggesting otherwise is either ignorance or dishonesty.

Why can't Democrats talk about crime?

But let’s talk about what Davidson and her Democratic allies refuse to talk about: crime.

New York’s problem isn’t a lack of gun control laws. We already have some of the strictest in the nation. The problem is that Democrats refuse to enforce the laws on the books. In 2022, even Mayor Eric Adams admitted that more than 80% of people arrested with a gun in New York City were back on the streets. Many had multiple prior gun arrests. Repeat offenders, often with lengthy rap sheets, cycle through the system and are released under disastrous policies like cashless bail, Raise the Age, and Clean Slate. Just weeks ago, a criminal ignored Times Square’s “gun-free zone” and opened fire, injuring three people.

Democrats like Davidson claim they want to “prevent crime,” but if you are soft on criminals who actually commit crimes with guns, you can’t credibly argue you’re preventing anything. Real prevention means taking dangerous people off the streets, not targeting law-abiding citizens.

Contrast that with my record.

In Albany, I supported harsh measures to crack down on ghost guns, disguised guns that look like toys, and unlawful gun purchases by fugitives. I backed laws expanding Extreme Risk Protection Orders, requiring background checks for semiautomatic rifles, and cracking down on body armor sales. And helped shepherd Alyssa's Law to ensure the use of panic alarms in our public schools. In Congress, I led the bipartisan renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act, working with Senator Schumer to keep guns undetectable by metal detectors illegal. I introduced a tax credit to promote safe storage and cosponsored background check legislation while making clear that 90% of criminals obtain their firearms illegally—by theft, on the street, or from friends and family—not through gun shows or private sales.

That’s a record of common sense and bipartisanship — the opposite of the cartoon villain Davidson paints.

Meanwhile, Democrats like her push unconstitutional bans that even the Supreme Court has made clear cannot stand after D.C. v. Heller. If an assault weapons ban were constitutional and effective, why didn’t Democrats pass it when they controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2009–2010 and again in 2021–2022? They know it won’t withstand scrutiny, and they know it won’t stop crime. But it makes for a good talking point.

New Yorkers don’t need talking points. They need action.

They need leaders willing to confront the fact that violent criminals — not hunters, not collectors, not veterans, not single women working night shifts concerned for their safety, not moms and dads teaching their kids to safely shoot at the range — are the source of gun violence. They need leaders willing to admit that policies like cashless bail have failed, and that coddling repeat offenders is a recipe for tragedy. They need leaders who understand that protecting constitutional rights and protecting public safety are not mutually exclusive, and who are willing to do the hard work of both.

Davidson wants to run for Congress on a platform of blaming the tool and ignoring the criminal. I’ll run on a record of bipartisan action, common-sense solutions, and standing up to the failed soft-on-crime policies that have made New York less safe. That’s the difference between leadership and empty rhetoric.

Davidson may think repeating lies makes them true. It doesn’t. If she were serious about gun safety, she’d realize a warning label won’t do anything to stop crime, but tougher penalties on criminals will.

Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican, represents New York's 17th congressional district.

Armed Marine veteran stops Michigan Walmart stabbing suspect

Mon, 28 Jul 2025 18:45:56 GMT

Armed Marine veteran stops Michigan Walmart stabbing suspect

Derrick Perry held knife-wielding man at gunpoint without firing a shot until authorities arrived

By Stephen Sorace
Fox News

An armed bystander was seen on video heroically stopping a knife-wielding man who authorities say stabbed 11 people at a Walmart in Michigan on Saturday.

The man, identified by family as Derrick Perry, is seen in the video pointing a firearm at the suspect in the store’s parking lot in Traverse City as he and other bystanders shout "drop the knife!" Perry is a Marine veteran, the New York Post reported, citing his family.

"What they did was amazing," Grand Traverse County Sheriff Michael Shea told reporters during a media briefing on Sunday.

Perry and the other bystanders ended the suspect’s rampage without firing a shot and held him until authorities arrived to take the man into custody without injury.

"First of all, I commend them. It's not very often that we have citizens that are willing to step up and take action, and I ask that we grant them the privacy that they need right now," the sheriff said. "If they choose to make a public statement, they will. But I would ask that we all just give them a little space and say, attaboy."

The suspect, identified as 42-year-old Bradford James Gille, of Afton, Mich., acted alone when he entered the store wielding a folding knife with a 3.5-inch blade, the sheriff said. He faces terrorism charges and 11 charges of assault with intent to murder.

The 11 victims, ranging in age from 29 to 84-years-old, were all expected to survive, Munson Healthcare officials said. One patient has been released while five were listed in fair condition, two in good condition, one in serious condition and two others were treated and transferred as of Monday morning.

The Overheard in Traverse City Facebook group wrote a post recognizing the brave actions of Perry.

"This is Derrick Perry!" read the post. "He is the hero from today’s stabbing at Walmart, he is the man that took his gun out and risked his own life to save many lives! Thank you so much Derrick."

Perry’s daughter replied to the post, describing her father’s heroic life-saving actions as a "proud daughter moment." His daughter-in-law wrote in a separate post that Perry is a "true hero."

The National Association for Gun Rights called Perry a "good guy with a gun" whose courage "deserves recognition" in a post on X.

She's Next; US Reps Rat Out Hochul to DOJ

Tue, 20 May 2025 13:02:31 GMT

U.S. REPS: SHE'S NEXT... (video)
Langley Outdoors Academy

DOJ urged to investigate New York gun laws over Second Amendment concerns

Fri, 16 May 2025 16:46:57 GMT

DOJ urged to investigate New York gun laws over Second Amendment concerns
May 15, 2025 12:51 PM / Updated: May 15, 2025 12:51 PM Digital Team

Two New York lawmakers are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate state-level gun control measures they argue are unconstitutional.

On May 15, 2025, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) sent a formal letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. She requested that the DOJ investigate whether New York State’s firearm laws violate constitutional protections. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) also signed the letter.

Lawmakers cite major Supreme Court rulings

In their letter, Tenney and Stefanik point to several landmark Supreme Court decisions that define the scope of the Second Amendment. These include:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

According to the lawmakers, these rulings confirm an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, they argue, New York’s current regulations violate the Constitution.

Specific gun laws under scrutiny

Tenney and Stefanik highlight three specific policies they believe are unconstitutional:

A ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles
Mandatory licensing and registration of firearms
A cap on magazine capacity that they describe as arbitrary

“These restrictions amount to a structural repudiation of the Second Amendment,” Tenney wrote. “Law-abiding gunowners must be protected.”

Revisiting NYSRPA v. Bruen

The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision in 2022 marked a significant shift in how courts evaluate gun laws. It struck down New York’s requirement for concealed carry applicants to show “proper cause.” The Supreme Court ruled that firearm regulations must align with the historical tradition of gun laws in the United States.

Despite that decision, Tenney claims that state lawmakers have continued to impose new restrictions. In her view, these measures directly contradict the Court’s guidance.

DOJ urged to take action

In her letter, Tenney emphasized the Department of Justice’s responsibility to uphold constitutional rights. She called for a swift federal investigation into New York’s gun control framework.

“The Second Amendment is not a suggestion,” she said. “It is a Constitutional guarantee that requires enforcement.”

According to Tenney, DOJ intervention is necessary because New York lawmakers have, in her words, “restricted the rights of New Yorkers for too long.”

What happens next

Whether the Department of Justice will respond or take formal action remains to be seen. However, the request signals ongoing legal and political friction surrounding gun policy in New York. As federal courts continue to shape Second Amendment interpretation, state laws will likely face increased scrutiny.

This content is brought to you by the FingerLakes1.com Team. Support our mission by visiting www.patreon.com/fl1 or learn how you send us your local content here.

Congresswoman Tenney Reintroduces the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to Protect Qualified Immunity

Fri, 16 May 2025 16:44:45 GMT

Congresswoman Tenney Reintroduces the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to Protect Qualified Immunity

May 15, 2025

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24), alongside Congressman Andrew Garbarino (NY-2), reintroduced the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to protect qualified immunity for police officers serving at the state and local levels nationwide.

This bill solidifies the precedent set in the Supreme Court case Saucier v. Katz, which ruled that police officers can only be held liable if there is a clear violation of an individual's constitutional rights. The Local Law Enforcement Protection Act will block federal grants to state and local governments if they deprive police officers of qualified immunity protections.

“As assaults on police officers continue to increase and the radical Left's ‘Defund the Police’ movement gains traction, some local and state-level governments are cutting police budgets and working to strip away qualified immunity. Police officers who put their lives on the line every day should be able to do their jobs without the constant threat of senseless lawsuits. The Local Law Enforcement Protection Act safeguards qualified immunity for these courageous police officers who risk their lives to serve our community. I will continue to stand with our men and women in blue to ensure they are treated like the heroes they are,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

“Qualified immunity has long protected law enforcement officers from being sued for doing their jobs when acting lawfully in the line of duty. Police protect and serve our communities every day—we have a responsibility to stand with them, not tie their hands. I’m proud to co-lead the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act, which discourages state and local governments from adopting harmful policies that undermine our law enforcement community," said Congressman Garbarino.

BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP'S CIVIL RIGHTS HEAD PREPARING FO WAR WITH ANTI-GUN STATES

Thu, 01 May 2025 14:33:07 GMT

TRUMP'S CIVIL RIGHTS HEAD PREPARING FOR WAR WITH ANTI-GUN STATES

NY Governor Kathy Hochul Doubles Down, More Gun Control for Law-Abiding New Yorkers

Wed, 09 Apr 2025 18:49:48 GMT

NY Governor Kathy Hochul Doubles Down, More Gun Control for Law-Abiding New Yorkers

Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 8, 2025 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

Albany, NY — Governor Kathy Hochul signed three new gun control bills into law last week, claiming they’ll help reduce violence in New York. But for lawful gun owners, it’s just more government overreach that chips away at constitutional rights without addressing the real causes of crime.

The new laws, rushed through Albany and signed late Thursday, add more restrictions on firearms, ammunition, and now even how you pay for them.

Here’s what Hochul just signed:

Ban on Pistol Converters: One bill adds “pistol converters”—devices that can allegedly turn a semi-auto pistol into a full-auto—to the list of banned “rapid-fire” mods in the state. Think bump stocks, binary triggers, and now… simple plastic blocks. Lawmakers say it’s about Glocks, but critics say it’s another excuse to vilify a popular brand and scare people with rare, fringe modifications.
Credit Card Tracking of Gun Purchases: Another law orders credit card companies to create a special code for firearm retailers so purchases can be flagged and tracked. Hochul claims it will help stop mass shootings. But civil liberties experts and Second Amendment advocates warn this is financial surveillance—targeting people for exercising a constitutional right. Big banks will now be the gatekeepers of your rights.
New Dealer Warning Signs and Paperwork: The third bill requires gun shops to post big warning signs and hand out papers to every buyer about the “dangers” of firearm ownership. The new language is more aggressive and clearly designed to stigmatize lawful gun ownership.

Hochul Says It’s Working—But At What Cost?

The Governor celebrated what she called a “53% drop in shootings” since 2022, crediting her administration’s $2 billion spending spree on law enforcement and gun control programs. But many question those numbers and whether that drop had anything to do with policies like credit card tracking or warning posters in gun stores.

Critics say the real goal here isn’t safety—it’s control.

“This is just more harassment of legal gun owners,” said one upstate dealer. “People who follow the law aren’t the problem. But Hochul and her team don’t seem to care about that. They just want headlines.”

Background Checks for Ammo Still Broken

New York’s background check system for ammunition, launched in 2023, is still plagued with delays. Even for a single box of .22s, buyers are often forced to wait days. As a result, many sportsmen are now buying larger quantities less often—ironically, the same behavior Hochul now wants banks to flag as “suspicious.”

Despite that, the Governor insists gun owners have nothing to worry about.

“It’s not about you,” Hochul said Thursday. “It’s about patterns.” But in practice, these laws cast a wide net that hits every legal gun buyer in the state.

“People Over Profit”… Or Politics Over Freedom?

Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon (D-Brooklyn), who pushed two of the bills, took direct aim at gun manufacturers, singling out Glock. She accused the company of ignoring its supposed role in gun violence despite the fact that criminals—not the tools—cause crimes.

“It’s time to put people over profit,” Simon said. But for many New Yorkers, it feels more like putting politics over freedom.

Bottom Line

Once again, Governor Hochul is doubling down on feel-good legislation that scores political points but punishes the wrong people. Law-abiding citizens who follow every rule are being treated like suspects, while violent criminals still walk free thanks to soft-on-crime policies across the state.

New York isn’t getting safer. It’s just getting more hostile to your rights.

Should Lead-Core Bullets Be Banned?

Thu, 03 Apr 2025 12:02:31 GMT

Should Lead-Core Bullets Be Banned?

All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

The campaign to ban lead ammunition for hunting is based on the far-reaching claim that there are no known safe blood lead levels (BLLs) for neurotoxicity, particularly for children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, Environment Canada, and the UK’s Food Standards Agency have singled out game harvested using lead ammunition as exposing children and pregnant mothers to an unacceptably high health risk.

Arguing that “a conservative approach” is appropriate when characterizing risk, the Canadian government is studying additional measures to further reduce exposure to lead. Lead has been banned from other products, including gasoline and paint, and banning lead-core bullets and sinkers is under consideration. A ban of lead bullets and shot would undermine civilian firearms ownership by making shooting extraordinarily expensive for many hunters and target shooters.

There is no disagreement that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, particularly for young children and fetuses. Low levels can harm children’s developing brains, causing learning disabilities, per the CDC. Research has shown that consuming meat contaminated with lead particles increases BLL. However, the research to date does not clearly demonstrate that the risks of lead poisoning from eating game harvested with lead ammunition are severe enough to justify a general ban.

Outdoor organizations (American, British and European) reject the necessity of banning lead ammunition, arguing that the health risks of lead are being exaggerated for political reasons and that individual hunters are well able to make informed choices about what is best for them and their families. “The use of traditional ammunition does not pose a health risk to human beings,” said Ted Novin, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Novin added that “there has never been a documented case of lead poisoning among humans who have eaten game harvested with traditional ammunition.”

In an abundance of caution, state wildlife agencies (such as Minnesota and Wisconsin) have increased efforts to educate hunters about the best practices of preparing game that minimize the risk of lead poisoning. Some tips are: always trim a generous distance away from the wound channel, and discard any meat that is bruised, discolored, or contains hair, dirt or bone fragments. Hunters are also encouraged to consider higher quality (and more expensive) ammunition such as copper or lead-core bullets that have high-weight retention.

To better understand the risks to human health from eating game meat it is necessary to examine the research behind these claims. Let’s look at two studies to see if their conclusions are justified:

1. Iqbal and his colleagues examined 736 people in North Dakota who lived in various locations in ND, holding a wide range of occupations, from welder to refinery worker. Most had lived in same household for over 10 years. Those who reported eating wild game were found to have 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game. Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Statistically, these differences are significantly different. This study was used to ban donations of game meat to food banks by generous hunters.

Analysis: The study did not examine alternative explanations for higher BLL, including hobbies and occupational differences. Despite finding higher BLL in those who ate wild game, the BLLs of both groups were well below a CDC threshold of 5 micrograms per deciliter. Importantly, both groups were at or below the US national average of 1.6 micrograms per deciliter. Unsurprisingly, no deleterious health effects were reported for hunters or their families.

2. A recent Canadian study is cited as supporting the dangers of consuming game harvested with lead ammunition, and it illustrates some of the methodological problems in studies linking higher blood levels with game harvested using lead ammunition.

Fillion and her co-researchers focused on three small Inuit communities in Nunavut (an arctic Territory in Northern Canada) where participants in the Inuit Health Survey in 2007–2008 had the highest blood lead levels (BLL). The study first examined the lead levels in game meat, house dust, paint chips and types of ammunition used by study participants. Blood samples from the 169 participants in the study showed that those involved with hunting, living in houses undergoing repairs or re-modelling, or eating game harvested with lead shot had higher BLLs than other participants.

To assess the lead level in game meat, samples were obtained from game harvested with lead ammunition from at least two parts of the animal. The researchers were surprised to find that lead levels in the game meat were generally low and did not exceed the guidelines for lead levels. They concluded that it was unlikely to be the major source of lead exposure for this population. Nevertheless, BLLs were highest among those who ate birds shot with lead pellets. No information was given if samples were taken from the wound channel or if visible lead fragments were removed before analysis.

In the second section of the study, the researchers assessed the isotopic profiles of each possible source of lead in the participants’ blood. Analyses showed that lead in house dust, paint chips, and ammunition had similar isotopes to those found in the blood, while differing from the isotopic profiles found in wild game. This suggests that exposure could have come from the dust from old paint, decrepit walls in the houses, or direct from the ammunition, but not from consuming wild game.

Analysis: The first point to note is that the participants in this study are not typical North American hunters; rather they were deliberately selected for having the highest blood lead levels in the earlier Inuit Health Survey. Second, the small size of the sample and the wide diversity among the participants (particularly in housing quality, hunting involvement, and game consumption patterns) made interpretation difficult.

Despite the disparity in isotopic profiles of lead in participants’ blood and wild game, the authors conclude, “Blood-lead concentration results were consistent with the hypothesis that lead-contaminated game bird meat is a significant source of exposure . . .” This conclusion is based on the significant increase in blood-lead concentrations of the main study group after the spring harvest of water birds. However, as the authors recognize, this ignores the possibility of lead contamination from alternative sources. The authors speculate that this contamination might stem from handling lead shot shells, and urge that lead shot shells be banned for all game hunting. There are plenty of game hunting tips on the internet, but this is probably one that you should put into practise until there is a full ban.

The recommendation of a ban is based on speculation, not the research findings. While the researchers note that participants made (cast) lead sinkers, they ignored this information. Nor did the researchers investigate the isotopic nature of the sinkers. Had they done so it would have been possible to discover if the higher BLL in men who hunt could have come from their reported activity of casting lead sinkers. Casting lead has long been known to be a dangerous activity and requires proper handling procedures and particularly extensive ventilation. Appropriate ventilation would be even more crucial in the arctic.

Meat preparation is a key determinant of the amount of lead residue found in game meat, but handling practices were inadequately reported. To know if a study adequately reflects the risk facing hunters using lead ammunition, it would be necessary to utilize procedures that follow best-practices, thereby ensuring lead is adequately removed from game. Information on best practices is available from various organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

These vulnerabilities in the claims about the dangers of lead bullets identified here imply that concerns about lead have been exaggerated. The case against lead bullets remains inconclusive. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game at typical consumption levels. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handing techniques.

Hunters have long recognized that hunting entails a variety of threats and have learned to “adapt and overcome.” Clearly, outdoor activities are more dangerous than playing video games or watching television.

Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with the threats facing hunters – from wilderness survival to possible CWD to lead toxicity. To the extent that lead contamination poses a threat to those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition, hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. Whether that is mixing up their hunting methods like using a deer feeder similar to what you can learn more about at Feed That Game to lure them into floor traps or whatever gets the job done to reduce the chance of the neurotoxins entering inexperienced hunters mouths.

Traditional outdoor organizations are well placed to educate hunters about the best practices for butchering game harvested using lead ammunition or to help them decide if they wish to use non-lead ammunition. Such groups have long provided information about best practices for casting lead sinkers or bullets.

Groups willing to throw the ammunition baby out with the supposedly toxic bathwater reveal their true purpose is opposition to hunting and not concern for the welfare of hunters or their families.

How Dangerous, Really, Is Lead Ammunition?

Thu, 03 Apr 2025 11:56:49 GMT

How Dangerous, Really, Is Lead Ammunition?
All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

A variety of authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK Food Standards Agency, as well as the Centers for Disease Control warn that there is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe. If true, then literally any exposure to lead should be hazardous. These authorities warn that blood lead levels (BLL) even lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter are a matter of serious concern. Scientists confidently assert that using lead bullets for hunting endangers human health, particularly that of children, and should be prohibited.

Such Draconian claims have important implications for hunters and their families, particularly families who rely upon game as a primary source of meat. Warnings about lead poisoning by anti-hunting activists are preventing generous hunters from donating wild game meat to food banks. Hunters are estimated to have provided over 1.3 million meals in 2014 to food banks across North America.

But is the science really settled? Is it universally accepted that no known level of lead exposure is safe? No. Respected scientists in Norway, Australia, and the UK, are skeptical that low levels of exposure must be considered dangerous, pointing out that the research remains unclear whether blood lead levels under 10 micrograms per deciliter have any meaningful health effects. Because the available studies do not provide reliable evidence to draw confident conclusions, these skeptics insist that more research is needed before any governmental restrictions are imposed on lead ammunition. It is not a stretch to compare the dire warnings about lead ammunition to the exaggerated claims of the Alar scare in the 1980s that unnecessarily frightened apple consumers.

Here are brief summaries of a few alternative assessments:

Norway

In 2013, the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) assessed the risk of lead exposure in Norway from consuming cervid meat (which includes moose, deer and reindeer). Many (70%) Norwegian hunters reported eating cervid meat at least once a month, and approximately 5% of the Norwegian population has a hunting license.

No association was found between game meat consumption and BLL in two of the four Norwegian studies reviewed. However, a significant association was found in two studies. No link was found for women, but men who consumed cervid meat monthly (or more often) had about 30% higher average BLL than those with less frequent consumption. The increase in blood lead concentrations appeared to be associated with consumption of minced cervid meat, particularly purchased minced meat. Blood lead concentration was found to be significantly higher in participants who reported hand-loading ammunition. However, there was a wide range, and many participants with high or long-lasting game meat intake had low blood lead concentrations.

The authors found that, “The number of years of game meat consumption was inversely related to blood levels, with about 5% decrease per decade of game meat intake. The phenomenon illustrates that game meat intake over time is not necessarily associated with higher lead accumulation in the body.”

VKM concluded by identifying serious data gaps that cast doubt upon warnings about the hazards of lead exposure in game meat. The data on lead concentration in Norwegian game meat, particularly in commercial minced meat, were inadequate. There was a wide range in the number of lead fragments found in commercial minced meat samples examined, apparently due to the manner of meat preparation. More research is required about the fragmentation pattern of bullets in moose. It was difficult to assess the bioavailability of metallic lead in food. Despite concerns about lead exposure from game meat consumption in children, it was impossible to conduct a risk assessment because no blood lead data or consumption data for children were available.

VKM reiterated concerns about heavy consumption of game meat, and urged that the lead exposure from cervid meat consumption could be reduced by removal of sufficient meat around the wound channel, and recommending increased educational efforts about the best practices of preparing game meat. They also encouraged hunters to use lead-core ammunition with low fragmentation such as certain types of bonded expanding bullets, or non-lead ammunition.

Australia

The prestigious Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a “comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on the health effects of lead” and issued a report in May 2015 titled, accordingly, Evidence of the Effects of Lead on Human Health. Despite their concerns about exposure to lead, the NHMRC remained somewhat tentative about the harmful effects of low BLL.

The NHMRC recommended that any Australian, particularly a child or pregnant woman, having a blood lead level greater than 5 micrograms per deciliter should investigate and reduce the source of exposure. However, the NHMRC cautioned:

“It is well established that blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms per deciliter can have harmful effects on many organs and bodily functions. . . .

“The evidence for health effects occurring as a result of blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter is less clear. NHMRC’s comprehensive review of the health effects of lead found an association between blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter and health effects, including reduced Intelligence Quotient and academic achievement in children, behavioral problems in children, increased blood pressure in adults and a delay in sexual maturation in adolescent boys and girls. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that lead at this level caused any of the health effects observed.”

The NHMRC was primarily concerned with lead exposure due to industry (such as lead mining or smelting) and recommended that communities should take steps to identify and control the source of lead exposure to reduce the risk of harm to the individual and to the community. In a companion report, the NHMRC cautioned Australians that casting lead fishing sinkers or eating game harvested with lead ammunition were activities also risking exposure and recommended that people take steps to reduce any potential dangers.

United Kingdom

Following concerns about the health risks of consuming game shot with lead ammunition, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) set up the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) in 2010. This group was charged with identifying the most serious risks and recommending possible solutions. The resulting LAG report in 2015 found that consumption of wild game meat killed using lead ammunition posed risks to tens of thousands of high-level consumers of wild game in the UK. LAG concluded that public education was unlikely to improve the situation and that the only way to guarantee an amelioration of human health concerns would be to replace lead ammunition with non-lead alternatives.

Concerned about procedural irregularities, a group of prestigious scientists withdrew from LAG, eventually deciding to issue their own minority report. They objected that LAG would “result in conclusions and mitigation recommendations which are not necessary, not appropriate or not proportionate in relation to real risks.” Their minority report reviews the evidence provided to the LAG and makes recommendations to address existing and new potential risks identified.

The independent scientists made several key points:

a) It is unclear whether blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter have meaningful health effects, because available studies (cross-sectional) do not provide reliable evidence needed to draw confident conclusions.

b) Evidence from studies in other countries may not directly apply to a specific country’s people.

c) Findings from population data cannot be applied directly to individuals (e.g., individual BLL higher than the national average does not necessarily correlate with reduced IQ).

d) A small difference in a group’s average for a specific health measure may not be health effects doctors can diagnose for people exposed to lead.

The key concern over the LAG human health risk assessment is that it was prepared by people with little human health or lead toxicology expertise, but who are themselves publicly antagonistic to lead ammunition. They made uncertain and non-transparent use of only some of the relevant literature. From this they concluded adverse effects of spent lead ammunition on human health, which appear to require substantial mitigation measures to control. However, the whole assessment is subject to many uncertainties which have not been confirmed.

These points drastically undermine LAG’s recommendation that lead ammunition should be urgently banned. Instead the dissidents advised improved game handling and processing efforts to minimize lead entering the human food chain through game meat, and encouraged consumers to take additional steps to reduce lead exposure through better methods of preparing game meat.

Conclusions

The reviews summarized here identify serious data gaps that undermine warnings about the seriousness of consuming game meat shot with lead bullets. It would appear to be more political than scientific to assert that prohibitions are the only solution, when training in best practices would show more respect for individual rights and might even be better for the health of consumers. Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with lead contamination for those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition. Hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. It is telling that none of the assessments of the potential health risks associated with lead exposure from game meat were compared to the benefits and nutritional value of eating game meat.

So the case for banning lead bullets remains inconclusive. These assessments of the dangers of lead bullets do not ignore concerns about the health risks, but they do imply that the dangers have been exaggerated. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handling techniques, although researchers also warned that greater precautions are required when casting bullets or hand-loading ammunition.

Finally, it is not easy to find an alternative to lead. Not only are all possible substitutes more expensive, but it has proved very difficult to achieve ballistic and impact equivalency using lead substitutes (like steel, copper or barium) that do not damage the firearm nor cause greater dangers to the environment. Lead is not the only toxic element—ingested iron, copper and barium are, too.

Banning lead for bullets and shot is not an easy solution—unless the end game is really to eliminate hunting with guns. And the point of that would be to undermine the Second Amendment.

Massie and other Republicans push 'National Constitutional Carry Act' to protect Americans' gun rights

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:04:45 GMT

Massie and other Republicans push 'National Constitutional Carry Act' to protect Americans' gun rights

The measure would protect Americans' right to carry guns in public

Alex Nitzberg By Alex Nitzberg Fox News

Published January 24, 2025 9:33am EST

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and a slew of other House Republicans are pushing a proposal that would compel states to allow Americans to carry guns in public areas.

The measure, dubbed the "National Constitutional Carry Act," would prohibit states and localities from limiting U.S. citizens from carrying firearms in public if they are eligible to have the weapons under state and federal law.

"By prohibiting state or local restrictions on the right to bear arms, H.R. 645 upholds the original purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure the security of a free state—while safeguarding individual liberties against government infringement," Massie noted, according to a press release.

Specifically, the text of the measure stipulates that "No State or political subdivision of a State may impose a criminal or civil penalty on, or otherwise indirectly limit the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by residents or nonresidents of that State who are citizens of the United States and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law."

"Any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a State or a political subdivision of a State that criminalizes, penalizes, or otherwise indirectly dissuades the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by any resident or nonresident who is a United States citizen and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law, shall have no force or effect," the measure reads.

The measure would not apply to locations "where screening for firearms is conducted under state law," and it would not block the owners of privately-owned facilities from banning guns on their premises.

Massie and others had previously pushed such a proposal last year as well.

In 2021, Massie shared a family Christmas photo in which each person was holding a gun.

"Merry Christmas!" the staunch gun rights advocate wrote when sharing the photo, adding, "ps. Santa, please bring ammo."

In a 2022 post, he criticized the term "Gun Violence," asserting that it "is part of the language leftists use to shift blame away from evil perpetrators of violence" and that it "suggests that guns are to blame instead of people, which sets the table for their anti-second amendment agenda."

"There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms: Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate," Massie also tweeted in 2022.

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:32:28 GMT

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

January 15, 2025

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) to ensure that states are prohibited from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun that is lawfully permitted under federal law.

Additional cosponsors of this legislation include Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1) and Nick Langworthy (NY-23).

New York's SAFE Act, signed into law under disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning certain firearms. If signed into law, this SAGA Act would nullify the SAFE Act and prevent New York and other states from passing unconstitutional gun bans.

"The Constitution clearly established our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The SAGA Act nullifies New York's unconstitutional SAFE Act and prevents other states from enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment. This legislation upholds our country's founding principle of protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans, even from liberal states with anti-gun policies," said Congresswoman Tenney.

"No matter how hard radical Democrats in Albany attempt to limit lawful gun ownership, the New York Congressional delegation will stand firm to protect law-abiding New Yorkers and manufacturers in protecting their constitutional rights. I am proud to join Rep. Tenney and my New York colleagues in Congress to ensure these rights ‘shall not be infringed, and I will never back down in my fight to protect the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Langworthy.

Poll: 3/4 of American Voters Want Pro-2nd Amendment Judges Nominated at Federal Level

Thu, 19 Dec 2024 13:03:55 GMT

Poll: 3/4 of American Voters Want Pro-2nd Amendment Judges Nominated at Federal Level

AWR Hawkins 18 Dec 202476 3:03

A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and released by the Second Amendment Foundation shows three-quarters of American voters believe it is “important” to see pro-2A judges nominated and confirmed at the federal level.

The poll asked, “How important is it to you to get judges confirmed and nominated to the federal courts who make it a priority to try their best to strictly follow the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

Seventy-six percent of respondents said it is “important.”

Another question asked, “How important is it to you that our political leaders in Washington, D.C. protect and defend the 2nd Amendment Rights in the U.S. Constitution of law-abiding gun owners?”

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said this is “important” as well.

When asked, “Do you think that President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” 63 percent of respondents said “yes.”

Jim McLaughlin commented on the poll’s results, saying,

Overwhelming majorities of voters want their political leaders in Washington to defend Second Amendment rights (77%). Furthermore, three out of four voters (76%) say it is important to nominate and confirm judges to the federal courts who will make it a priority to strictly follow the Second Amendment and nearly two-in-three voters (63%) think President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

A fourth poll question asked, “Who do you think will do a better job of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners in America…the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?”

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said “Republicans” versus only 24 percent who said “Democrats.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb also commented, saying, “This survey underscores the prevailing public perception that Democrats have become the ‘party of gun prohibition.’ The numbers also justify SAF’s commitment to defend the Second Amendment in our various court challenges, winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, a Pulsar Night Vision pro-staffer, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly: awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

New York’s “Vampire Law” Gun Free Zones Struck Down Again

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:22:12 GMT

New York’s “Vampire Law” Gun Free Zones Struck Down Again

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 12, 2024 by John Crump

A federal judge in the Western District of New York issued summary judgment for the Firearms Policy Coalition striking down New York State’s “Vampire Law.”

The order read:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the State’s restriction on private property open to the public. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to this issue.

New York State’s “Vampire Law” made private property open to the public “gun free zones” unless the owner posted signs or gave express permission to carry a firearm on the property. This law was a part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The CCIA was a concealed carry law passed in an emergency session shortly after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Many believe that New York State was thumbing its nose at SCOTUS.

Instead of becoming less restrictive at Bruen, the state became more stringent, making it a felony to carry firearms in most of the Empire State. The “Vampire Law” made it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to fill up their car with gas while carrying their gun unless the gas station posted “guns welcome” signs. After the CCIA passed, multiple lawsuits were filed against New York State, challenging different parts of the regulations.

One of those cases was Christian v. James, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation in the Western District of New York. The plaintiffs were able to get a preliminary injunction against the law. This injunction was just one of a few injunctions against the prohibition of carrying firearms on public property open to the public without express permission. The injunction enjoined New York State from enforcing the new regulations.

Both New York State and the plaintiffs asked the District Court for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the law. The state was fighting an uphill battle since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the law in Antonyuk, which was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA). Judge John L. Sinatra ruled against the state on the private property issue, stating that the law was Unconstitutional.

According to the Bruen standard, a gun law has to be consistent with the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. There was no question that the right to bear arms was part of the text of the Second Amendment. Judge Sinatra was weary of the state’s historical analogs for tradition and history. Most dealt with plantations and hunting. Although Rahimi said a historical analogue must be similar, it doesn’t have to be a historical twin. The state provided multiple laws about hunting and trespassing on plantations, but the judge believed these laws were too different from the “Vampire Law.” The state also tried to cite laws from after the ratification date of the 14th Amendment, but the judge rejected those, too. Anti-gun states liked to use the ratification date of the 14th Amendment in 1868 because there were a lot more gun laws on the books to prevent formerly enslaved black people from obtaining firearms.

The judge declined to rule on the second part of the case, which dealt with carrying firearms in public parks and public transportation. He highlighted that those issues were appealed to SCOTUS in Antonyuk. In Antonyuk, the Second Circuit upheld those restrictions, leading GOA to file for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The writ would be granted. The Second Circuit’s decision was vacated, and the case was remanded back to the lower court, where they would get another chance to get it right.

New York State asked for a 14-day stay on the court’s decision to give them time to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sinatra rejected the request, stating that the injunction has existed since 2022, so there is no irreputable harm, and the defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Also, the Second Circuit already upheld a similar injunction in Antonyuk.

“This is yet another important victory for Second Amendment rights and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights organizations like Everytown and Giffords. We will continue to fight forward as we work to restore the full scope of the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Hopefully Kathy Hochul is ready to write another check for legal fees.” — FPC President Brandon Combs

“This is an important victory. SAF is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” — SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb

New York State is expected to appeal the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit even though the Second Circuit has already upheld an identical injunction.

New York State GOP Fact Sheet: Equal Rights Amendment

Wed, 03 Jul 2024 12:27:56 GMT

Proposed Constitutional Amendment: The So-Called “Equal Rights Amendment”
• Governor Hochul and Albany Democrats adopted a proposed state constitutional amendment: the “Equal Rights Amendment.” A recent Appellate Court decision ruled it will appear on the November ballot as Prop 1 .

• Partisan policymakers claim this amendment is needed to protect abortion rights in New York. This is not true. New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal.

• What Does it Say? The amendment’s broad language would create “new” constitutional rights.

• Among these new “rights” are “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The language would cover all persons including minor children. If voters approve Prop 1 in November, it will grant minor children the right to medical transgender interventions without parental consent/ notification. Several laws currently under consideration in Albany would likewise not require parental consent such as treatment for STDs. European regulatory authorities have walked back initial policy recommendations for gender affirming care cautioning a far more conservative approach. Why has New York NOT learned from these experiences?

• The NYS Department of Education released guidance in 2023 entitled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students”. Accordingly, a minor child will now decide if parents should be informed of their decision to transition and school administrators are not permitted to inform parents of their child’s desire to change genders.

• Prop 1 would protect this and future laws now under consideration that would allow minor children to have medical procedures and receive medications without parental consent. Yet parents will remain legally responsible for managing the emotional consequences and physical side effects impacting their minor children.

• Passage of Prop 1 will prohibit schools from barring biological males from participation on female sports teams, jeopardizing the fairness of such contests. Girls who are vying for athletic scholarships will be disadvantaged as a result. Prop 1 goes further than impacting school sports teams as it will disallow all single sex activities –in locker rooms, bathrooms, and sororities. Prop 1 would question the viability of single sex public or private education• Prop 1 will also govern free speech -- for religious organizations and charitable groups providing medical,
educational, and other services including adoptions and foster care. Multiple reports exist from other states where children are being denied to loving foster care parents because of the parents’ religious beliefs on gender expression and other faith-based teachings.

• Governor Hochul and the legislature enacted a law to protect minors from abuse on social media. Yet she is a proponent of Prop 1. Why? Because by falsely portraying abortion rights as under threat, there will be enhanced voter turnout for their side – and at the cost of our kids.

NYS GOP - ERA Fact Sheet - July 1 - PDF with Banne_240702_135424.pdf

How States Can Use Existing Laws To Find Foreign Nationals On Their Voter Rolls

Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:54:36 GMT

How States Can Use Existing Laws To Find Foreign Nationals On Their Voter Rolls

BY: BRIANNA LYMAN

JUNE 25, 2024

To find foreign nationals on their voter rolls, states can use two little-known federal statutes to verify whether a registered voter is an American citizen through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to America First Legal (AFL).

AFL sent letters on Monday to each state’s chief election official — along with a copy to their respective governors and attorneys general — highlighting two statutes that the legal group says allow states and localities to request information about a person’s citizenship and immigration status. If requested, AFL contends, DHS is required to provide such information.

AFL first points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), which requires the former Immigration and Naturalization Service — which was replaced by the DHS — to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

AFL also points to 8 U.S.C. § 1644, which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

“Accordingly, States and localities should submit requests to DHS to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls where there are any reliable indicators that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen,” AFL summarized in a press release.

AFL President Stephen Miller pointed to the record-high number of illegal aliens crossing the border under President Joe Biden, calling it an “extraordinary threat to our elections.”

“Any leader who wishes to protect the franchise of their citizens must act to implement these recommendations with haste,” Miller said in a statement. “Patriotic officials must act at once to stop Biden’s illegals from voting — and this action plan from AFL tells them exactly what they must do.”

Alien voting in federal elections is illegal, but the federally-mandated registration process doesn’t meaningfully prevent it. A potential voter who registers via a federal registration form simply must check a box affirming he is a U.S. citizen. Republicans have introduced the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which would require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

Currently, Arizona is the only state that has some mechanism in place besides the honor system to keep foreign nationals from registering to vote. The state requires potential voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. But thanks to federal government interference, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for state registration can still register as federal-only voters.

New York: End-of-Session Typically Means More Gun Control

Thu, 06 Jun 2024 12:11:12 GMT

New York: End-of-Session Typically Means More Gun Control

NRA-ILA Wednesday, June 5, 2024
New York is entering the final days of the 2024 legislative session and a flurry of gun control is swirling in Albany. With anti-gun super majorities and limited debate, the unrelentless appetite to penalize gun owners and ignore actual criminals continues. It's critical that gun owners engage by using the take action button below to contact their Assembly members to help stop this last-minute surge.

On Tuesday, the Senate passed several more gun control bills which include:

S.4818 establishes a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The bill passed the Senate 42-19. The Assembly companion bill, A.5696, is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.8479 requires payment card networks to use certain merchant category codes for firearms dealers. This intrusive bill is dangerous and a massive invasion of privacy. This type of data collection is used to create registries and blackball gun owners. The Assembly companion bill, A.9862, is still in committee in the Assembly.

S.2086 establishes a voluntary waiver of the right to purchase firearms, rifles, and shotguns. The Assembly companion bill is A.565 and is still in committee.

S.138A, which strikes a blow to NRA-certified instructors, requires certification of instructors to be done by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Assembly companion bill, A.6663A is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.7392A relates to the creation of a public nuisance created by the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, and marketing of firearms. This bill and its Assembly counterpart, A.7555A, have both passed.

S.8589/A.7717B relates to extreme risk protection orders. New York already has an ERPO law, but this legislation expands the class of petitioners. The bill has passed both chambers.

There are other bills that remain in the hopper, which are equally bad. Among them, gun owners should be concerned about a lead ammunition ban on state public hunting lands and legislation to certify “personalized firearms” or “smart guns” as technologically viable. This, of course, is nothing more than an attempt to ban the new sale of traditional handguns.

Again, contact your Assembly Member and urge them to oppose any new gun control in the final days of the 2024 session!

Insufficient Gun Owner Involvement in Unsuccessful Herrera Race Will Not Go Unnoticed

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:37:13 GMT

Insufficient Gun Owner Involvement in Unsuccessful Herrera Race Will Not Go Unnoticed Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 1, 2024 by David Codrea

Establishment Republicans have spoken. Gun owners have responded. And Democrats couldn’t be happier. (Team Tony/Facebook)

“U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales prevails in primary runoff over gun influencer Brandon Herrera,” The Texas Tribune reported Wednesday. “The race became a referendum on the San Antonio Republican’s vote to support a bipartisan gun control package after the Uvalde school shooting.”

It also became a referendum — and a bellwether — for how involved gun owners are willing to involve themselves in the political process, and the results will no doubt encourage Democrats looking to this and the upcoming races for weaknesses to exploit, as well as Republicans looking to maintain the status quo.

Per The New York Times, with 95% of the vote tallied, Gonzales got 15,023 votes, and Herrera got 14,616. The difference between victory and loss was a mere 407 votes.

Per the U.S. Census, there were over 575,000 people over 18 in District 23 at last count. Even factoring out foreign nationals and illegal aliens who aren’t supposed to vote, that’s still an order of magnitude of eligible citizens voluntarily disenfranchising themselves.

“Measuring ownership is tricky, but there are snapshots,” The Texas Tribune noted in a 2022 analysis. “From 1980 to 2016, 46% of Texans, on average, had a firearm in their household…” Then factor in the District 23 majority is Republican down the line, president, senators, and congressman, and it’s hardly a wild leap to conjecture that 408 more votes for Herrera were more than doable.

Especially considering what big business area gun shows are. (Don’t get me started.)

Frustratingly, getting the right candidate depended on what gun owners were willing to do, and in this case, it wasn’t enough. But the community is not a monolith, so perhaps looking at types of gun owners will give clues as to where the potential for better participation exists. It’s also relevant to recall a quote attributed to the ancient Greek statesman Pericles:

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

First there are Fudds, hunters and sport shooters who either aren’t involved in politics, don’t get involved unless it’s their ox being gored, are willing to throw EBR (Evil Black Rifle) owners under the bus, and worst of all, Fudds for Biden and their ilk. If they’re not persuaded by now that their turn in the barrel will come, chances are efforts to recruit them will fall on deaf ears.

Another group resistant to persuasion are the TINVOWOOTers, those who maintain “There is No Voting Our Way Out of This.” Ultimately, they may be right, who knows? And that’s the point. We don’t know when, we don’t know where, and in the meantime, we see signs that participating in citizenship and using the remarkable framework bequeathed us by the Framers can yet bear fruit: The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision on the Second Amendment and just now unanimously siding with the NRA on the First are but two examples. And regardless of the way things ultimately go for Donald Trump in court (if some government actor doesn’t take him out), perhaps enough outraged Americans, realizing that Joe Biden is an irredeemably corrupt dolt, will make a stolen election too risky to try. In any case, we could all use more time to prepare before things fall apart, and gun owners dropping out now serves no one whose intentions are good.

A third group offers promises for improvements, gun owners who attempt in various degrees to stay informed and involved. We’re talking a mixed bag, though, with some immersed in activism, joining national and state gun groups and spreading the word, and others limiting their contributions to angry comments under articles. Everyone in this group knows work needs to be done, but not everyone lends a shoulder to the wheel, so we’ll see grassroots efforts where 10% of the members do 90% of the work, and we’ll see the same ratio sharing links to important articles via emails and ADVOCACY media (“social” media is for kitten pictures). Unfortunately, an even smaller number actively involve themselves in political campaigns and donate or do the necessary grunt work (precinct walking, campaign banks, poll monitoring, etc.)

The Democrats beat “us” at organizing just about every time, and while there’s a bit of validity to the “we have jobs and families” excuse, in the end that’s what it is—an excuse. Plenty of us have jobs and families and still manage to do what we consider our civic duty with the time, resources, and talents that we have, and to join with like minds, find what we can do and do it. And that brings us to the fourth group, one I have no answer for.

“We have no shortage of expectations and strong opinions about what we want. But when it comes time to step up to the plate, things get awfully quiet,” I wrote in my January 2007 Rights Watch” column for Guns Magazine, “Profiles in Apathy.”

In it, I recalled three endeavors where gun owner involvement was needed, electing one of ours against a gun-grabber, supporting a man persecuted by the Democrat political establishment for his efforts to recall an “assault weapon ban” author, and a national advertising campaign to spread the word on the Second Amendment. All ultimately mirrored the story of “The Little Red Hen,” where plenty wanted to eat the bread, but good luck finding help planting wheat.

If this doesn’t change, correction, if we don’t change that, gun owners will be telling two supposedly opposite groups they can get away with more betrayals and infringements.

First will be establishment Republicans. Biden Bipartisan Gun Ban Bill backer Tony Gonzales got a big boost when NRA A-rated Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed him instead of red meat 2A Brandon Herrera. And now Tony’s out there doubling down on his betrayal – with CNN. So, when November rolls around, what are gun owners going to do? Vote for the gun-grabbing Democrat?

No wonder Vichycons feel like they can get away with feeding us anything and we’re going to keep eating it. Alternatively, why should true believers put their lives on hold and themselves out there if the people they’re trying to represent leave them hanging? (And don’t say “Libertarian” unless you’re good with “the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”)

The Democrats are also watching and taking note. Experts at Astroturfing, they know gun owners don’t have “angels” (wrong word?) like billionaire Michael Bloomberg to finance their subversion, and our efforts, from funding lawsuits against infringements to supporting candidates, and everything in between, depend on what individuals are willing to do.

They have to be encouraged by what they’ve just witnessed.
The question now is, is this what we — and they —
should expect from now until November?!

Ruger SR22 Pistol Product Safety Bulletin

Thu, 02 May 2024 12:00:10 GMT

Ruger SR22 Product Safety Bulletin

printable safety bulletin

Will NY be the State that Destroys All Government Gun Permitting Schemes!?

Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:04:42 GMT

Will NY be the State that Destroys All Government Gun Permitting Schemes!?

Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 10, 2024 by Roger Katz

Opinion
After decades of denying the individual right to bear arms and three landmark Supreme Court cases in the Twenty-first century refuting that myth, New York is now in the crosshairs.

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed” ~ Isaiah 10 (KJV)

For decades, many people serving in the Federal or State Governments across the land, as well as many academicians, have wrongly postulated that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms does not refer to an individual right but a collective right.

This mis-perception is grounded not on sound legal and logical analysis but on bias—a personal animus directed toward armed self-defense.

More particularly, this hostility derives from a stark abhorrence of the well-armed citizenry as a check on government tyranny.

It isn’t the prospect of tyranny or government encroachment on the sovereignty of the American people over the government that troubles proponents of the “collective rights” argument, but rather the fact that the armed citizen can effectively resist that tyranny.

Over the past decades, the Federal Government has amassed incredible power—an unconstitutional usurpation of power.

While this troubles many Americans, it troubles few others who find it tolerable, acceptable, and even commendable since it is presumed essential to the end goal of governmental power absolutism, which is considered a good thing to some. This quest is borne of an attitude.

This attitude results from strict adherence to a sociopolitical-economic philosophy that is at odds with our Nation’s history, heritage, and core values, as reflected in the Articles of the Constitution and, more directly, in our unique Bill of Rights—a set of Natural Law Rights, emanating from the Divine Creator—fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, unbroken, persistent, and eternal.

Many Americans and many State Governments correctly understand this and realize the need for America’s armed citizenry, no less today than in the past, as our Country is awash in violent crime.

As an uncaring Federal Government amasses more power unto itself, it uses none of that power and authority to serve the American people but, instead, to harm the people, in service to itself to secure ends antithetical to those of the people—consolidating power to cement its tyranny over the people.

A Tyrannical Government will not tolerate the armed citizenry.

Not until the first decade of the Twenty-First Century did Americans who cherish their natural law right to armed self-defense successfully challenge the erroneous collective rights idea of the Second Amendment, which had held stubbornly sway for so many years and decades and impliedly embraced a notion of the Government as sovereign over the people rather than the Government beholden to the people with the people as the sole sovereign over the Government.

A dangerous transformation of the role of the Government and its relationship to the people has gradually taken shape. It is one at odds with the concept of a Free Constitutional Republic.

A backlash was brewing. And it came none too soon in the face of a torrent of bizarre and unconscionable political and societal notions thrust on the public psyche through a concerted and diabolical propaganda campaign meant to confound the citizen’s rational thought processes and fracture his moral sense.

In the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court responded to Americans’ justified outrage at states’ continued defilement of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

Through comprehensive elucidation, the High Court had, at long last, made unambiguously and unequivocally plain that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—a right unconnected to a person’s service in a militia.

A basic rational, common-sense understanding of the need to protect oneself with effective means from aggressive assault only buttresses the Court’s legal and logical analysis in Heller.

Many States that traditionally abhor the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms balked and, looking for an “off-ramp,” claimed the Heller decision does not apply to them.

Americans then challenged that idea, and the U.S. Supreme Court again responded by ruling in a second landmark case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago.

In that 2010 case, the Court made plain that the fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms applies to the States no less than it does to the Federal Government. No Government of men can lawfully countermand Divine Law, but some States dared to do so anyway. They continued to frustrate the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This required the U.S. Supreme Court to step in yet again.

In a third landmark case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) vs. Bruen, the High Court made plain the right to armed self-defense, implicit in the words, “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” applies in the public sphere as well as in one’s home.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement in Bruen that offended that Truth.

For well over a century, the New York State Government had maintained that no one has the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside one’s home. “Proper Cause” was the instrument crafted to deny Americans’ right to armed self-defense outside the home. The New York Government created that standard for uniform application across the State.

But, the State Legislature never defined what “Proper Cause” meant.

It was left to the New York Courts to define Proper Cause” that would express the intent (or an intent) of the State Legislature in Albany.

The Courts said “Proper Cause” means “special need,” which, more precisely, means “extraordinary need” to carry a handgun for self-defense. And, “extraordinary need,” referring to need beyond the ordinary, entailed the notion that a need grounded on basic self-defense when in public is insufficient to justify the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.

Since everyone could claim “self-defense,” especially in a major metropolitan area like New York City, prone to criminal violence, a person working or residing in the City would henceforth need to prove to the satisfaction of the licensing official (or officer) why the danger to that person’s life and well-being extended beyond the “ordinary” day-to-day danger of criminal violence that factored into everyone else’s life.

This inevitably led to the creation of arbitrary standards. Meanwhile, New Yorkers who could not prove “extraordinary need” for a handgun would face and have faced violent, life-threatening assaults.

It was then left to the various jurisdictions in New York to devise operational rules to effectuate the court definition of a “special” or “extraordinary” need sufficient to justify the issuance of a coveted unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license.

The principal jurisdiction in the State, the major municipality, New York City, devised elaborate operational rules, effectively restricting to a bare minimum the number of people who could legally carry (concealed) a handgun for self-defense.

This was the intent of the NYPD Licensing Division, which the Municipal Government authorized to craft rules to effectuate “Proper Cause” for issuing a concealed handgun carry license that would permit the licensee to carry a handgun on his person in the City lawfully.

Other jurisdictions never bothered to craft operational rules. In those jurisdictions, the licensing official would issue concealed handgun carry licenses to favored people. Generally, that would mean Government officials such as judges or powerful, wealthy, connected people.

These ideas of issuing concealed handgun carry licenses to a privileged few or creating arbitrary rules benefitting some people to the exclusion of many others are anathema to the Second Amendment’s import.

These ideas undermine the import of the “Common Man” by creating a “privileged” subset of people whom the Government bestows the “right” to armed self-defense.

“Proper Cause,” as crafted and applied, is antagonistic and antithetical to the rulings and reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the prior two landmark Second Amendment cases.

The High Court was not amused at New York’s continued irascibility and defiance of the most basic of natural law rights.

It saw New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement for what it was: an unconstitutional, unconscionable Government intrusion on an American’s fundamental, unalienable, enduring right—one deliberately, callously, and insidiously designed to frustrate the legitimate need of the average person, the “Common Man,” to protect his or her life against a dire threat.

Carrying a handgun is the most effective means to deter a life-threatening assault, bar none.

Long acknowledged as infinitely better than a knife, a whistle, martial arts, and, more recently, pepper spray, a handgun has, for the last two centuries, served the “Common Man” well as the singularly most effective means presently available for countering a deadly, aggressive assault on life where that threat remains commonplace and omnipresent, now as in the distant past—in the public sphere. This isn’t difficult to understand. It is simply common sense.

As one academic scholar pointed out in a law review published in 2015, seven years before the Bruen decision came down,

. . . [R]ecognition of the right to bear arms in public makes sense, while limiting the right to the home does not. People often need to defend themselves against criminal offenses outside the home. Most robberies, rapes, and assaults occur outside the home. A ban on possession of handguns outside the home would be even more burdensome than the ban struck down in Heller: there the Court noted that homeowners could still keep shotguns or rifles in the home, which is not the case outside of the home.

Some argue that, even if the Second Amendment was historically understood to protect the right to bear arms in public, it does not protect the right to bear handguns in public because effective handguns did not exist until around 1835. This argument is ‘frivolous’ after Heller, however, which states ‘the Second Amendment extends . . . even [to] those [arms] not in existence at the time of the founding.’ Alternatively, the very existence of state legislation prohibiting concealed carry, or public carry entirely, reveals a longstanding tradition of states being able to regulate the right. While it is true that state laws barring concealed carry have been upheld under the Second Amendment, these laws were typically only upheld where the ability to open carry was not infringed. [ Note: New York’s municipalities do not permit “open carry” of handguns, only “concealed carry”—and then, only if the civilian citizen has secured a valid concealed handgun carry license, which he must always have with him].

From “The Constitutional ‘Terra Incognita’ Of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws,” 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 909, 944-945 (2015), by Brian Enright.

The New York Government, like many others, refuses to acknowledge the obvious—obstinately maintaining that “Public Safety” demands the “Common Man” be disarmed for the good of all. Really?

Tell that to the family of a person whose life was snuffed out because he or she had applied for and was denied a handgun license for self-defense for failure to prove, to the satisfaction of the handgun licensing authority, “Proper Cause,” for issuance of a license.

Apart from politicians like Kathy Hochul, it is the career criminal, the psychopathic, murderous gang member, and the violent, raging, drug-addled lunatic that delights in the prospect of a disarmed public.

New York Governor Hochul, no less so than her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, detests the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms.

“Proper Cause” effectively subverted the Second Amendment and rested at the heart of the Handgun Law.

It was an apt instrument—an expression of and actualization of the State’s belief system—thrust on the “Common Man,” the American citizen who happened to reside or work in New York.

“Proper Cause” is an irrational response to an equally irrational attitude.

By robbing the “Common Man” of his access to the best means available for effectuating the natural law right to self-defense, New York denied, in law, the sanctity of innocent human life.

The State would never acknowledge this, but its Handgun Law entails that conclusion. Without the enactment of “Proper Cause,” New York could not have become an efficient “May Issue” State. It remained so for well over a century. But that smug self-complacency came crashing down.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released the Bruen decision.

Hochul was irate and lashed out at the court’s rulings and the Justices. She did so immediately after the decision came down and continues to do so.

But Hochul feigned indignation. As the consummate politician, she knew she could rely on favorable Press coverage from a sympathetic mainstream media. Like all petty tyrants, her fear isn’t predicated on the ridiculous idea that law-abiding armed citizens are prone to create a “wild-west” atmosphere. There is no evidence for that anywhere. The contrary holds. See, e.g., the article in “Freedom and Prosperity.”

Presumed concern for ensuring “Public Safety” became the mantra for restricting the exercise of the Common Man’s fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense.

Governor Hochul knew an adverse ruling was coming in Bruen—eight months before the decision was published—and her Government intended to be prepared for that exigency.

She deciphered this after Oral Argument held in late November 2021.

In the succeeding months before the publication of the Bruen decision, her government meticulously crafted amendments to the Handgun Law that, when implemented, would provide an adequate, if not ideal, substitute for “Proper Cause.”

Plainly, Hochul had no intention of complying with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The Court’s Article III authority be damned.

Her defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings amounts to blatant disregard for and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of a Free Constitutional Republic.

The Hochul Government used all the state power, money, and authority it could muster to battle against the weight of the U.S. Constitution and the sacred, inviolate natural law rights of man, upon which our Nation has stood fast since its inception.

The Hochul Government has devised two mechanisms that, together, substitute for “Proper Cause” that the High Court had struck down.

These two mechanisms, cunningly crafted, operate in tandem.

One involves a substantially reworked, heavily bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement.

The second involves the imposition of a “Sensitive Place” impediment to legally carrying a concealed handgun.

The State invoked the “Character” requirement as an imposing hurdle for applicants to overcome to constrain the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses.

And, for those individuals who secure a New York concealed handgun carry license (many more individuals than had received such licenses when “Proper Cause” existed), the “Sensitive Place” impediment kicks in. This, a new requirement, severely constrains a licensee’s exercise of armed self-defense when carrying a handgun in public for self-defense.

Concealed handgun carry, which had been unrestricted in New York for decades for self-defense in the public sphere of life, would henceforth be reduced in status to heavily restrictive lawful use in the public arena for self-defense.

As the Hochul Government had undoubtedly intended, these amendments would compromise the licensee’s ability to lawfully defend him or herself in public when the need arose.

Challenges to the constitutionality of the amendments to New York’s Handgun Law came quickly.

Wending their way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court published its decision in December 2023. The case is Antonyuk vs. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271 (2nd Cir. 2023). The Court mostly sided with the Hochul Government.

The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari. The High Court must take this case up for review, as the Second Circuit’s decision impacts and is inconsistent with Bruen. A loss for NY could see the end of all unconstitutional license or permitting schemes across the nation.

Given the present and considerable danger to safety and well-being in New York and in various municipalities and States across the Country resulting from unchecked unvetted illegal entry of aliens into our Country, and to demoralized, handcuffed police departments across the Country, and to a flaccid, flawed criminal justice system, violent crime has metastasized at a geometric progression as the hardened, violent criminal has grown ever more confident.

Innocent people become the playthings of vicious criminals and lunatics. This doesn’t perturb Kathy Hochul and Albany.

Armed self-defense has become more important today to safeguard survival given a fragmenting society.

But many New Yorkers have no intention of playing the victim in a Country transformed into a Beehive. The average person’s life means nothing to people like Hochul, Biden, and other Political Progressives and Marxists.

With the ominous specter of Government autocracy becoming more evident every day, the citizen must be more cognizant of the predatory Government man-beast, no less so than he must be cognizant of the predatory criminal beast who preys on him at random and with abandon.

While most States have acceded to the dictates of the natural law right of the citizen to take up arms in his defense and that of his family, especially in such dangerous times as these now upon us, several States have not deigned to accede to or even to acknowledge the natural law right to armed self-defense.

Ironically, it is these latter States that also hamstring their police departments and kowtow to the criminal element and the Radical Left lunatic fringe to the detriment of the law-abiding, rational, and responsible citizen. New York is one of these jurisdictions.

Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany have abdicated their responsibility to the American citizen who resides and/or works in New York or otherwise does business in the State.

It is bad enough that the Hochul Government has effectively washed its hands of New Yorkers. Worse, the Hochul Government won’t allow the American citizenry to provide for its defense against a society that has run amok.

The New York Government’s antipathy toward armed self-defense, as evidenced in word and deed, must not be perceived in a vacuum.

The Government’s public policy and the accompanying statements reflect a general suspicion of, a contemptuous attitude toward, and an abject disregard for the safety and welfare of the American people who reside and work in New York.

This isn’t something that just happened recently. What exists today in the State is a product of what occurred in the past—the far-distant past.

New York’s abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth scrutiny, for New York is a microcosm of the view held by the present Biden Administration toward this most important of all natural law rights and mirrors much of the same antagonism toward the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment expressed by Governors in similar jurisdictions.

We delve deep into this in the next several articles in the lead-up to the most important U.S. Presidential election in our lifetime. Will Tyranny continue to prevail and worsen or will the Country return to sanity and its historical roots? Woe to all of us if this Country continues down the present path.

Biometric Gun Safes Recalled Due to Serious Injury Hazard and Risk of Death; Imported by Awesafe

Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:30:15 GMT

Biometric Gun Safes Recalled Due to Serious Injury Hazard and Risk of Death; Imported by Awesafe

Name of Product: Awesafe Biometric Gun Safes

Hazard: The biometric lock on the safes can fail and be opened by unauthorized users, posing a serious injury hazard and risk of death.

Remedy: Replace

Recall Date: February 22, 2024

Units: About 60,000

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2024/Biometric-Gun-Safes-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Injury-Hazard-and-Risk-of-Death-Imported-by-Awesafe

cpsc.gov-Biometric Gun Safes Recalled Due to Serious Injury Hazard and Risk of Death Imported by Awesafe.pdf

Gov. Hochul announces special election for 26th Congressional District

Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:44:24 GMT

Gov. Hochul announces special election for 26th Congressional District

The special election to replace Congressman Brian Higgins in the House will be held on Tuesday, April 30.

WASHINGTON D.C., DC — Governor Kathy Hochul announced Monday, a special election to replace Congressman Brian Higgins in the House, will be held on Tuesday, April 30.

With Brian Higgins’ departure from Congress, a special election to ensure representation for the 26th District will be held in April,” Governor Hochul said. “From our days representing Western New York in Congress together to our partnership in the years since, I am grateful for Brian’s service to our State and our country. I wish him all the best as he embarks on a new chapter of service and look forward to working with his successor to improve the lives of New Yorkers.”

New York’s use of red-flag laws to seize guns has skyrocketed

Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:22:09 GMT

New York’s use of red-flag laws to seize guns has skyrocketed

By Joanna Slater

January 19, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EST

A selection of firearms removed in Long Island’s Suffolk County. Last year, judges in the county issued 1,600 red-flag orders, but fewer than 100 guns were seized. In most cases, individuals don’t own a gun, but the order will prevent them from buying one for a year. (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office)

The unusual phone calls began last year.

So many guns were being seized by the New York State Police, several evidence custodians told a union official, that they were running out of space to store them.

The guns were tagged and arranged neatly, lined up on shelves or in cabinets. “People were saying, ‘Where the heck are we going to put all this?’” recalled Timothy Dymond, the president of the New York State Police Investigators Association.

The packed evidence rooms were a direct result of one of the most ambitious experiments ever attempted with red-flag laws, a relatively new tool that states are deploying to combat gun violence. Such laws are used to prevent people at risk of harming themselves or others from possessing or buying firearms.

In New York, the results of the experiment have been dramatic. Last year, the state’s civil court judges approved more than 4,300 final orders under the law, up from 222 in 2021. At least 1,800 guns were removed by the state police and local law enforcement agencies in 2023.

New York’s unique approach was driven by the nation’s rising gun deaths. After the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket in 2022, New York strengthened its red-flag law in a manner unlike any other state, making it a requirement rather than an option for law enforcement authorities to pursue such orders.

Last year, the law was used to respond to an array of possible dangers, from suicide to mass violence: a student who brought a gun to school and allegedly talked about shooting a teacher; a teenager who police said brandished a gun on a school bus; a man who threatened to shoot up a supermarket with his father’s gun; a woman experiencing delusions who brought a shotgun to a gas station.

Research has shown that such laws are associated with a decrease in the rate of firearm suicides, which account for more than half of the nation’s gun deaths. In Connecticut — the first state to pass a red-flag law — researchers estimated that one suicide was averted for every 10 or 11 gun removals. The laws have also been used hundreds of times in cases of people threatening mass shootings, a recent study found.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has hailed the red-flag push as a way to prevent deadly tragedies. In her annual address to lawmakers on Jan. 9, she said the gun-control legislation enacted by the state is “a model for the rest of the nation.”

Gun rights groups, however, have called the expanded use of the red-flag law overzealous and unconstitutional. Such groups won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law governing who could carry a concealed weapon. But, so far, the court appears inclined to uphold laws that remove guns from those considered dangerous.

New York’s enforcement of its red-flag law has not been without challenges: Some law enforcement officers have struggled with the additional workload the cases represent as well as finding room to store the guns they seized.

The storage issue is a minor growing pain, said a senior state official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. “It’s a good problem to have,” he said. “It means our strategy is working.”

A spokeswoman for the state police, which has removed more guns under the red-flag law than any other law enforcement agency in New York, said it is currently managing the increase in stored firearms “with existing space.”

New York is one of 21 states that have passed red-flag laws, the majority of them within in the last six years. The measures typically allow law enforcement and family members to petition a court to temporarily take guns away from someone at risk of harming themselves or others. During the time the order is in effect — usually a year — the person is also barred from buying weapons.

“It’s a very tailored intervention,” said April Zeoli, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health who studies red-flag laws.

The measures are also known as “extreme risk protection orders,” or ERPOs, a term proponents prefer over the more colloquial “red flag.”

Researchers say the impact of the laws has been weakened by inconsistent application. Some jurisdictions, such as the city of San Diego, have embraced the law as a tool, using it often. Meanwhile, in states such as Nevada and New Mexico, fewer than 30 percent of counties have issued such orders, according to the research arm of Everytown for Gun Safety.

After New York’s ERPO law went into effect in 2019, its rollout, too, was uneven, with law enforcement officials in many parts of the state using it sparingly.

Then, in May 2022, 18-year-old Payton Gendron opened fire in a racist rampage at a Tops Supermarket on Buffalo’s East Side. Ten people were killed, all of them Black. The prior year, someone had called the state police to report that Gendron had made alarming comments about a possible shooting. The police took him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation, and he was later released. No petition was filed to prevent Gendron from buying or possessing a gun.

Shortly after the Buffalo shooting, Hochul convened a call with her leadership team, the senior state official said. She gave them 24 hours to come up with policy changes that might have prevented the shooting or could avert future violence.

Four days after the shooting, Hochul issued an executive order requiring law enforcement personnel to file an ERPO application when there was credible information that a person was likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others. That meant an ERPO would no longer be an optional choice, but an obligation.

“Quite frankly, we didn’t look at other states,” the official said. “We thought this would be the right step.” In June, lawmakers in Albany included the change to strengthen the ERPO law in a package of gun restrictions. Health-care practitioners were also added to the list of people who could file applications, which already included family members and school officials.

Justice Dept. to seek death penalty for Buffalo mass killer

New York is the only state that requires law enforcement personnel to file ERPO petitions in certain situations, said Allison Anderman, senior counsel at Giffords, an advocacy group that works to combat gun violence. Police officers in New York “know the law is available and should be used, something which has been a problem in many other states.”

Starting in mid-2022, just weeks after the executive order, the number of ERPO applications in the state began to surge. In the second half of that year, the number of final orders granted by judges more than quintupled (in New York, a judge can approve a temporary ERPO immediately, but a final order is granted only after a hearing).

One early issue: State troopers were appearing at court hearings on the petitions without legal representation.

To rectify the situation, Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) created a new unit of prosecutors dedicated to ERPO cases involving state police. Last year, they handled about 1,400 such cases, according to a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, winning more than 90 percent of them.

Long Island’s Suffolk County files more ERPO applications than any other in New York, a trend that local officials attributed to early efforts to train police officers on how to use the law and improve coordination with prosecutors.

Suffolk County Sheriff Errol Toulon Jr. said he believes the enforcement of the law has saved lives. He described the case of a person who made suicidal comments last July and a judge granted an ERPO. The sheriff’s office found the person possessed 11 shotguns, 10 rifles and 13 pistols.

The following month, police were called after another person put a fake gun to their head, saying “wait until I get a real one.” A few weeks later, the same person attempted to purchase a firearm, Toulon said, but was prevented from doing so because a judge had approved an ERPO.

Whether it involves a threat of suicide or to harm others, “we want to make sure someone making those claims is not going to be able to access firearms,” Toulon said.

A review of court records for recent and upcoming ERPO hearings in Suffolk County showed that many cases involved people deemed at risk of harming themselves. But there were also circumstances in which people posed a danger to others: A 53-year-old man brandishing an ax threatened to kill his brother and his family; a 42-year-old woman experiencing paranoid delusions fired a shotgun at her ceiling, then took the weapon with her to the nearest gas station. In both cases, firearms were removed.

Last year, judges in Suffolk County issued 1,600 final ERPOs. The sheriff’s office seized fewer than 100 firearms, however. In a majority of cases, individuals don’t necessarily own a gun, but the order will prevent them from buying one for a year, said Chief Deputy Sheriff Chris Brockmeyer.

Not all applications are successful. In October, police responded to a call from a 60-year-old man saying he was holding an intruder at gunpoint, court records showed. When they arrived, they found no signs of an intruder, but the caller told them he was experiencing delusions. A judge later denied the application for an ERPO, saying the man was not alleged to have threatened harm to himself or others.

Some critics and Second Amendment activists say New York’s ramped-up enforcement of the law has meant that people who pose little to no threat could be deprived of their firearms and become unable to buy them.

“You’re presumptively going to lose access to your guns, that’s the practical effect,” said Daniel Strollo, a lawyer in Rochester, N.Y., who has represented dozens of people facing ERPO petitions. The law lacks sufficient procedural safeguards, he said, and its requirement that police officers file such orders is “insulting” to their expertise and experience.

Lower courts in New York have issued decisions that alternately uphold and reject the law’s constitutionality. The state is appealing a ruling last year by a judge in Orange County who held that the red-flag was unconstitutional.

Anderman, the senior counsel at Giffords, said that red-flag laws have so far survived constitutional challenges across the country. “Every single one builds in due process requirements,” she said.

Still, some law enforcement personnel have expressed unease about the blanket application of the law. Sometimes an officer “will say to me, ‘Tim, I’m really glad we did this because this guy was losing it and very dangerous,” recalled Dymond, the head of the state police investigators association. Other times, they tell him they filed an ERPO application only because they were obligated to do so.

That’s when officers ask if they really need to take a person’s guns away. “Yeah, we do,” is Dymond’s reply. “That’s the law.”

In these chaotic times, a brief AR-15 primer

Sat, 13 Jan 2024 21:45:42 GMT

In these chaotic times, a brief AR-15 primer by Mike McDaniel

The Seventh Circuit has recently ruled AR-15 pattern rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment. The lawless ruling ignores the Heller and Bruen decisions.

Leading the list of long guns sold, the ubiquitous AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in America. Circa 2023, Americans own more than 23 million. The AR-15 is also the rifle type democrats/Socialists/Communists are most desperate to ban, that and so-called “high capacity magazines,” which have been standard capacity magazines since the Vietnam War.

Considering d/S/C support for criminals and their overt efforts to abolish or cripple the police, it’s easy to understand why Americans continue to buy arms and ammunition in record quantities: they tend to do the opposite of what government wants–-they’re American that way–-and they’re not stupid. To set the record straight a brief AR-15 primer:

*“AR” does not stand for “assault rifle,” and certainly not for “assault weapon,” a linguistic invention best understood as any gun anti-liberty/gun cracktivists want to ban. Eugene Stoner, the AR’s inventor, worked at Armalite, thus, “Armalite Rifle.”

*Virtually all AR-pattern rifles are semiautomatics, unlike the military M4. It’s theoretically possible to own a machinegun in AR form, but as I recently explained, is all but impossible.

Left to right: .22LR, 9mm, .223, .308

*ARs do not fire a “high-powered” cartridge. The .223/5.56 NATO cartridge is intermediate power, useful in hunting animals the size of coyotes. The main military advantage is the cartridge is small and weighs much less than true high-powered rounds. Many more may be carried for the same weight and space. The cartridge is not uniquely dangerous or deadly, and our warfighters have long complained about its relative ineffectiveness. Modern combat occurs at far closer ranges than past combat.

*ARs are chambered for larger diameter cartridges with the addition of properly sized upper receivers, but the cartridge must still fit within the dimensions of a standard AR magazine, therefore, no “high-powered” cartridges work.

*The AR, in M16 guise, was first adopted by the Air Force for base security, and only later and reluctantly, by our other military branches. Not a new invention, its forerunner, the AR-10, was designed in the mid-50s. ARs have been on gun store shelves since the early 1960s.

*Magazine capacity is irrelevant. Magazines in any magazine-fed firearm may be changed within a few seconds. What is relevant is in this increasingly lawless time, one never knows how many attackers they may have to face. A standard AR magazine, or greater than 10-round pistol magazine, may be the difference between life and death.

*Police agencies are increasingly replacing shotguns with ARs. They’re accurate to 300 yards and beyond, yet their light-weight bullets tend not to over-penetrate. The difference in recoil and muzzle blast between 12-gauge shotguns and ARs is dramatic. Female police officers, and not a few male officers, hate shotguns. After a few qualification rounds, they’re more than happy to stop shooting. All enjoy ARs.

*Collapsible stocks are no sinister aid to criminals, nor do they aid in concealability. They “collapse” about 3.5 inches, which allows a general issue rifle to properly fit a variety of soldiers. In civilian use, they allow the same rifle to easily adjust to father, mother and daughter.

*Their rugged, light weight, construction is designed for field use. They’re easy to shoot accurately, easy to clean and maintain and resistant to damage, which makes them excellent hunting rifles as well as suitable for every other lawful purpose.

*They are ergonomically superb. Even little girls find their low recoil, light weight, and accuracy delightful.

*Unlike what the d/S/C media would have us believe, they are virtually never used in crime. The 2019 FBI Uniform Crime Report, which encompasses data from 2015-2019, lists the use in 2019 of 13,927 weapons of all kinds in homicides, but only 364 rifles of all types. AR-15s were only a tiny portion of that tiny portion of rifles.

*In Heller and Bruen, the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It affirms an unalienable, natural, individual right to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and every other lawful purpose, which includes semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. The AR-15 is the most common and popular contemporary semiautomatic rifle.

*Part of the AR’s popularity is veterans have always been fond of their service rifles. Even though civilian versions are not fully automatic, owing a replica of a service rifle is an American tradition and has always helped with recruiting, help of which we’re very much in need.

The Seventh Circuit and other cases will soon cause the Supreme Court to specifically rule AR-pattern rifles constitutionally protected. There is no constitutional, practical reason otherwise. A more complete AR primer may be found here.

Mike McDaniel is a classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor and retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

New York County Calls for End to Background Checks on Ammo Sales

Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:54:58 GMT

New York County Calls for End to Background Checks on Ammo Sales

By Cam Edwards | 7:31 PM on December 13, 2023

The frustration over New York’s latest background check scheme hasn’t subsided in the months since the State Police started conducting checks on both firearm transfers and ammunition purchases. If anything, the animosity towards the new regime, which has been plagued by lengthy delays and false denials, is only growing stronger.

This week the county legislature in Schuyler County voted unanimously in favor of a resolution calling on the state legislature to repeal the ammunition background check law and restore the old background check system for gun transfers, which allowed dealers to contact the NICS system directly instead of having to go through the State Police as an intermediary.

The resolution will most likely be shrugged off by the Democratic majority in Albany, but Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman and members of the county legislature still wanted to send a message to lawmakers that the new system is unnecessary, unwanted, and is hurting local businesses.

“It’s redundant because most of the people have already gone through background checks for firearms, and the federal system has been in place to do this for years. The pending court challenges allege that these additional costs are a violation of the Second Amendment,” said Getman.

Both background checks come with a state surcharge. A background check for a handgun or rifle is $9 and for ammo, it’s $2.50 per transaction. The background check can take anywhere from minutes, to hours, or even days. Some people have said their purchases have wrongfully been denied.

[Schuyler County Clerk Theresa] Philbin said because of the fees and long waits, gun owners are heading to Pennsylvania for their ammo and guns.

“It’s simply geographically easier to just hop over the border to Pennsylvania and make the purchase. Once you’re down there, why not purchase your ammo or any other guns you might need for hunting, or stands, anything to that effect, which is going to make a huge impact on our local businesses,” said Philbin.

One nearby gun store owner who used to see a lot of customers from Schuyler County told local officials that he stopped selling guns and ammunition the day the new checks went into effect because he knew it would be an imposition and infringement on the rights of his customers. Michael Keegan is now focusing on the gunsmithing side of his Mountaintop Firearms and Gunsmithing business, but says his income has declined by 50 percent since the ammo background checks began.

I suppose supporters of the background check system can argue that Keegan brought that on himself by choosing to discontinue his gun and ammunition sales, but other retailers who’ve chosen to continue offering firearms and ammo for sale have said their bottom line has been impacted by customers who are choosing to drive across the border and buy their ammo in Pennsylvania rather than submit to the ammo background checks in the Empire State and possibly face delays of hours or even days before they can take home a box of ammo or two.

Most members of the Democratic majority in the state legislature wouldn’t shed a tear to see these local shops shut down for good based on declining sales figures. They might even see that as a bonus to the background check legislation, which is facing a legal challenge in federal court. The Supreme Court declined to intervene on an emergency basis and halt the ammunition background check scheme, but that doesn’t mean the Court will ultimately rule in favor of the system after the case goes to trial and the appeals process. That could take years, however, and by the time SCOTUS does get the chance to weigh in again, who knows how many stores will have had to shut their doors for good.

Federal Court Reinstates Right-to-Carry In Houses of Worship

Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:57:28 GMT

Federal Court Reinstates Right-to-Carry In Houses of Worship from https://www.albanyupdate.com/Albany Update: New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

A recent preliminary decision from a federal appeals court represents a step in the right direction regarding the right to bear concealed firearms in houses of worship in the state of New York.

On December 8, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Antonyuk v. Chiumento. In this decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed four consolidated cases in which various organizations and individuals challenged the New York gun control law known as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The CCIA was passed in 2022 immediately after another New York gun control law was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Because the CCIA banned volunteer church security team members from carrying concealed firearms, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms filed a lawsuit contending that it violated the Second Amendment. Other lawsuits were filed, and this limitation on volunteer church security personnel was found unconstitutional. Later, the CCIA was amended to allow unpaid security personnel at houses of worship to carry firearms; however, congregants remained barred from doing so.

In Antonyuk, the court preliminarily found some parts of the CCIA unconstitutional, but allowed other parts of the law to stand. Specifically, the court blocked the provisions of the CCIA that ban the carrying of firearms on private premises which are open to the public, that require concealed carry permit applicants to submit their social media accounts for government review, and—most importantly, at least for Christian gun owners—that prohibit carrying concealed firearms within houses of worship. The court upheld portions of the CCIA that ban concealed carry in “sensitive places” like parks and theaters. The court found it problematic that the CCIA treats concealed carry in houses of worship differently than it treats concealed carry in nonreligious venues.

The Antonyuk decision means that for now, New York concealed carry permitholders may now carry firearms within houses of worship, whether or not they are security team members.

The court noted that its decision was made “at a very early stage of this litigation,” and stated that “a preliminary injunction is not a full merits decision, but rather addresses only the ‘likelihood of success on the merits.’” The court added that its decision “does not determine the ultimate constitutionality of the challenged CCIA provisions, which await further briefing, discovery, and historical analysis, both in these cases as they proceed and perhaps in other cases.”

Schuyler County Legislature advocates for repeal of gun, ammo background check fees

Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:24:26 GMT

Schuyler County Legislature advocates for repeal of gun, ammo background check fees

December 12, 2023 11:00 AM / Updated December 13, 2023 6:39 AMStaff Report Staff Report

In a unanimous decision, the Schuyler County Legislature passed a resolution on December 11, advocating for the New York State government to repeal the background check fees on firearms and ammunition.

Initiated by Schuyler County Clerk Theresa Philbin and drafted by County Attorney Steven Getman, the resolution is a symbolic gesture supporting a State Senate Bill currently navigating through Albany.

This legislative push comes in response to the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in 2022, which introduced new restrictions and requirements for pistol permit holders.

The Act, a reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, now mandates background checks for ammo purchases and routes gun background checks through the New York State Police.

These checks, previously free under the Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, now carry state surcharges — $9 for a handgun or rifle and $2.50 per ammo transaction.

Local impact of the new law has been significant, with Schuyler County businesses feeling the economic strain.

As the Bill, sponsored by State Senator Mark Walczyk (R-49), proceeds through the legislative process in Albany, it faces several stages of approval before potentially becoming law. Governor Hochul will now review the resolution passed by the Schuyler County Legislature, which highlights the local government’s position on this contentious issue.

ATF to Reclassify YOU as a 'Gun Dealer' ACT NOW! comment period ends December 7th

Tue, 05 Dec 2023 22:14:35 GMT

ATF to Reclassify YOU as a ‘Gun Dealer’ Act NOW: Comment Period Ends Dec. 7th

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Dec. 7 deadline looms: Biden’s ATF is planning to reclassify YOU as a ‘gun dealer’ to EXPAND ILLEGAL GUN REGISTRY.

Your action is needed RIGHT NOW. The comment period on the BATFE’s proposal to change the definition of what it means to be “engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms” expires on December 7, 2023, so you have less than a week to send your comment. You can submit a comment with just a few mouse clicks by simply going to the Gun Owners of America website and clicking on their prepared form, or you can go to the Federal Register website and compose a comment of your own.

There is no excuse for not doing one or the other of these actions.

The anti-rights radicals have latched onto this one and “generated” tens of thousands of repetative comments gaming the system in support of the BATFE’s new definition proposal. There are currently almost 300,000 comments logged, and a majority of those appear to be boilerplate paste-ups from the antis’ web pages. We need to catch up and surpass them. That will require not only that you submit a comment but also that you share this information widely and encourage others to submit comments.

Please note that while the GOA comment system is the easiest way to submit a comment, federal agencies are supposed to give less weight to repetitive comments like those and the ones generated by anti-gun groups. Original comments from individuals are supposed to be given more weight by the reviewers, so it’s better to write your own original comment at the Federal Register website if you’re able. But don’t let that be an impediment. Any comment is better than no comment, so if you don’t have the time or confidence to write up an original comment, just use the GOA system to submit one of theirs. This will probably put you on GOA’s email list, which you should be on anyway, but you can easily opt out of that list if you prefer.

“I oppose this revision of the definition of “engaging in the business.”

Original comments don’t need to be detailed or elaborate. Simply stating that you oppose the new definition is the minimum comment needed. Pointing out specific reasons for your opposition can give your comment more impact, but it’s not essential.

NYC bodega owners, grocers arming themselves with guns amid violent thefts plaguing Big Apple

Mon, 04 Dec 2023 14:08:07 GMT

NYC bodega owners, grocers arming themselves with guns amid violent thefts plaguing Big Apple

They’re stocked, locked, and loaded.

Hundreds of Big Apple supermarket and bodega owners are arming themselves as the epidemic of violent theft continues to plague their businesses.

Over the past year, the United Bodegas of America and the Bodega and Small Business Group said they’ve helped at least 230 store owners apply for their gun licenses, connecting them with concealed-carry classes required by the state to obtain a permit.

The National Supermarket Association, which represents roughly 600 independent grocers, estimated a quarter of its members in the city are packing heat, compared to 10% pre-pandemic.

“You see the necessity because the city is getting out of hand with the crime rate,” said one supermarket owner, who purchased a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun two months ago, after thieves cut a hole in the roof of his Ridgewood, Queens, store to steal $3,000 and smash up the registers and camera system.

“I feel safer having a . . . weapon with me,” the 50-year-old said, especially when going to the bank.

The gun-toting grocer said he hasn’t had to use his firearm, but practices once a week for the worst-case scenario where he needs to defend himself and his staff.

“I don’t know who is coming in, what I’ll confront, on my way in, on my way out,” he said.

Radhames Rodriguez, who owns several bodegas in the Bronx, said he purchased a 9mm Smith & Wesson pistol after obtaining his concealed-carry license two months ago.

“If I see somebody coming to me and I’m going to lose my life because somebody’s got a gun aimed at me, a knife, I need to protect myself and my family,” said Rodriguez, 60, who is also the UBA president.

Rodriguez said he previously had a “premises” gun permit to protect his business during the crime-ridden ’80s, but as the city cleaned up under the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, he let the license lapse.

With the recent wave of violence, “it started looking like in the ‘80s, the ‘90s,” he said. “That’s why I applied [for my new gun license], and this is why I have it.”

Many grocers have felt an increasing need to arm themselves partly because of slower police responses to their emergency calls, according to retired NYPD Sgt. Johnny Nunez, who leads 18-hour courses covering gun safety and live firearm training that are required by New York State for obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

“They recognize that there’s less cops on the street, they’re attending all these rallies, and [they] have to defend [themselves],” said Nunez, whose classes have been attended by many bodega and supermarket owners.

“Those factors, and the fact that crime is up [compared to pre-pandemic levels], that’s what’s driving them to at least feel protected,” he added.

The surge in gun-toting grocers follows the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year to strike down New York State’s century-old law, which severely restricted who could carry handguns in public by requiring applicants to show “proper cause” for needing the weapon beyond general protection.

It also follows a jump in shoplifting in recent years, with complaints soaring to 54,229 through Nov. 30, versus 37,919 incidents for all of 2019, per NYPD data.

“The criminals have the upper hand — they’re the ones going out there robbing us, murdering us . . . getting away with it,” UBA spokesman Fernando Mateo told The Post.

In March, a beloved Upper East Side bodega clerk was fatally shot during a late-night robbery, while two robbers shot a Spanish Harlem deli clerk in the groin and pistol-whipped a customer in June.

In May, four men held a Woodside bodega employee at gunpoint before stealing at least $6,000.

“If we can fight with the same firepower, they’re going to think about it twice,” Mateo said.

RemArms Ilion Operation To Close, March 2024

Fri, 01 Dec 2023 12:40:20 GMT

Rem Arms Ilion Operation to Close March 2024

ILION, N.Y. -- In a memo to employees, RemArms, LLC stated that the operation in Ilion will close entirely.

"I am writing to inform you that RemArms, LLC has decided to close its entire operation at 14 Hoefler Avenue, NY 13357," the memo obtained by NEWSChannel 2 stated.

"The Company expects that operations at the Ilion Facility will conclude on or about March 4, 2024," the memo stated.

Around 250-300 employees work at the facility.

New York State Senator Joseph Griffo (R-C-Rome), Assemblyman Brian Miller (R-C-New Hartford) and Assemblyman Robert Smullen (R-C-Meco) released a statement regarding the closure of the Ilion plant.

“Remington’s reported decision to close its Ilion plant next year is concerning and unfortunate. This facility, which received investment from the state, employs many local residents. Unfortunately, like we have seen all too often in New York, burdensome regulations, crippling taxes and problematic energy and other policies continue to force businesses and companies to flee the state, taking jobs and livelihoods with them. We will continue to communicate with state and federal officials and work to help and assist the company’s employees and their families during this difficult time.”

Supreme Court Accepts NRA First Amendment Case – A “Historic Step Forward” for the NRA and Free Speech

Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:21:10 GMT

Supreme Court Accepts NRA First Amendment Case – A “Historic Step Forward” for the NRA and Free Speech

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) commented on the United States Supreme Court accepting National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo for review. The decision is a landmark development in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the nation.

“This is a historic step forward for free speech, the NRA’s millions of members, and for all who believe in freedom,” says NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre. “The NRA’s fight for justice continues – this time in the highest court in the land. At a time when free speech is under attack as never before, it is important that government officials be sent a message that they cannot use intimidation tactics to silence those with whom they disagree.”

In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use the regulatory power of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.

The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims. The court ruled that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” it was reasonable for New York's financial regulator to warn banks and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the supposed “social backlash” against those groups’ advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullo’s guidance – written on her official letterhead and invoking her regulatory powers – was not a directive to the institutions she regulated, but rather a mere expression of her political preferences.

On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision.

The Court granted review on the following question: Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?

“The Second Circuit’s opinion…gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents – from gun rights groups, to abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond,” the NRA states in its petition. The Association argues that the Second Circuit erroneously opened the door to unrestrained harassment of advocacy groups by state officials, and seeks to have it closed.

“We are grateful the Supreme Court will review this First Amendment case and excited by the opportunity to argue to the Court that a government regulator cannot take adverse action against its political enemies,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The ruling from the Second Circuit condones public officials having unbridled power to attack those with whom they disagree.”

Seven amicus briefs representing 40 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA.

The amicus briefs include those from state attorney generals from Montana and 17 other states, in addition to a brief filed jointly by Texas and Indiana. Various business and legal scholars, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Gun Owners of America, among others, also submitted briefs.

The NRA observes this is not the first time state officials have leveraged their regulatory power to suppress a disfavored civil rights organization or choke off disfavored speech. The NRA's petition to the Court emphasizes a long line of First Amendment cases – from seminal decisions involving the NAACP, to the Supreme Court's storied Bantam Books decision – that forbid such tactics.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has voiced its support for the NRA.

In August 2018, ACLU Legal Director David Cole wrote that, “…they [New York public officials] cannot use their regulatory authority to penalize advocacy groups by threatening companies that do business with those groups. And here the state has admitted, in its own words, that it focused on the NRA and other groups not because of any illegal conduct, but because they engage in ‘gun promotion’ – in other words, because they advocate a lawful activity.” The ACLU wrote that dismissing the NRA’s case “would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Public officials would have a readymade playbook for abusing their regulatory power to harm disfavored advocacy groups without triggering judicial scrutiny.”

Eugene Volokh joins Brewer in representing the NRA, along with Brewer Partner Sarah B. Rogers and firm counsel Noah Peters.

Supreme Court to review NYS gun laws

Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:05:06 GMT

Supreme Court to review NYS gun laws

by: Amal Tlaige

Posted: Sep 28, 2023 / 09:29 AM EDT

Updated: Sep 28, 2023 / 09:51 AM EDT

ALBANY, N.Y. (WTEN) — A new law is changing how background checks are conducted for those looking to purchase guns and ammunition. The latest lawsuit challenges this law and other New York gun laws. From the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas granted an emergency conference to look into a provision of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, also known as CCIA. This came after a group of gun store owners sued Governor Hochul over the state’s new background check system.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Governor Kathy said this case is intended to dismantle a series of laws created after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s century-old conceal carry law. “They are dead set on placating their NRA donors and supporters and we are the ones left to clean it up. We are working really hard to ensure that New Yorkers are safe,” said Hochul.

Background checks for guns and ammunition used to be conducted under a federal system, but As of September 13, it’s become the responsibility of state police. Background checks to purchase a firearm cost $9 and for ammunition, $2.50. “The gun dealers have to contact the state police and the state police then contact NICS in order to get a background check. Anytime you put more steps in a complex procedure it always gets messed up,” said Tom King, President of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

King has had a pistol permit for 40 years. He said he was denied when he requested ammunition, but doesn’t know why, “The only people that are being affected are the lawful gun owners and if you ask the FBI, ask the state police, we are not the problem. the percentage of lawful gun owners that are involved in violent crimes is minuscule.”

Assembly member Robert Smullen said the conference could be a pivotal moment for New York Gun laws. “I predict that the governors gonna be severely rebuked by the United States Supreme Court. They could strike down whether it’s this background or these ammunition checks or they could strike down the entire law, or they can require that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals bring their case directly to them,” explained Smullen. The case will be brought to the full court for conference on October 6.

NRA, hunters and US Forest Service beat environmental groups in legal battle over lead ammo

Tue, 05 Sep 2023 12:28:32 GMT

NRA, hunters and US Forest Service beat environmental groups in legal battle over lead ammo

The environmentalists said that when animals are shot and their remains are left behind or when they are field-dressed, the toxic ammunition fragments can be ingested by other animals.

A federal court ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association, hunters and the U.S. Forest Service over environmental groups who were pushing to ban lead ammunition in a national forest.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday unanimously rejected an attempt from the Sierra Club, the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity to order the Forest Service to ban lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest, which is a popular hunting destination near the Grand Canyon.

The Center for Biological Diversity first filed the lawsuit in 2012 alleging that the Forest Service violated federal conservation law by failing to regulate lead ammo in the Kaibab. The following year, the NRA, and two hunting groups – the Safari Club and the National Sports Shooting Foundation – joined as defendants in the lawsuit.

The environmentalists said that when animals are shot and their remains are left behind or when they are field-dressed, the toxic ammunition fragments can be ingested by other animals.

Because the center admits that the Forest Service is "not the source of any lead ammunition found in the Kaibab, the question is whether a person who has some power to prevent someone else from contributing to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of hazardous waste is liable," the court wrote in its opinion Friday before stating "that the answer is no."

"This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda," the rifle association wrote on X after the court's decision.

NY gun owners will face background check fees for ammo purchases next month

Thu, 24 Aug 2023 12:43:28 GMT

https://www.fingerlakes1.com/2023/08/23/ny-gun-owners-will-face-background-check-fees-for-ammo-purchases-next-month/

NY gun owners will face background check fees for ammo purchases next month

August 24, 2023 6:19 AM Staff Report

Starting September 13, New York State will require gun owners to undergo a background check every time they purchase ammunition, a move that has left many perturbed.

Not only will buyers have to navigate the new checks, but they’ll also shoulder the cost: $9 for the firearm background check and an additional $2.50 for ammunition.

The collected fees will be channeled to the state police to facilitate the checks.

Advocates have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity provided to dealers and the potential time lag for checks, given the added workload for the state police.

Changes Coming Soon for New York State Gun Owners

Tue, 22 Aug 2023 13:17:50 GMT

Changes Coming Soon for New York State Gun Owners MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2023

There are some significant changes due to take effect early next month in the Empire State.

New York is switching from a jurisdiction in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducts firearms-related NICS background checks, to one in which the New York State Police will conduct all firearm and ammunition-related background checks using both NICS and a pending “statewide license and record database.” This shift is occurring due to legislation enacted last year, NY Exec. Law § 228, which authorizes the state police to act as the “point of contact” for background checks required under “18 U.S.C. sec. 922(t), all federal regulations and applicable guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, and the national instant criminal background check system for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.”

That law directs the Superintendent of State Police to establish a “centralized bureau” for firearm and ammunition background checks. NY Exec. Law § 228(7) specifies that, within 60 days of July 15, 2023, the superintendent must “notify each licensed dealer holding a permit to sell firearms” to submit requests for background checks to the state police, which appears to be an indirect way of setting a deadline of September 13 (the date the 60-day period expires) for the system to be operational.

Section § 228(5) allows the state to charge fees for background checks using this state database, which fees cannot “exceed the total amount of direct and indirect costs incurred by the bureau in performing such background check.” One source indicates that these fees will add an additional $9 (firearms) and $2.50 (ammunition) to purchases and transfers.

The shift to a state “point of contact” jurisdiction occurs in tandem with a second change, a related but separate development under a state law that mandates background checks for ammunition transfers by “sellers of ammunition.” This background check requirement dates back to the SAFE Act of 2013 and requires that a state database for ammunition background checks be used (federal law, 28 C.F.R. 25.6, limits the use of the NICS system for checks “only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose”).

This ammunition background check requirement comes with a statutory precondition and grace period before it may take effect. Specifically, the state police superintendent must first “certify” that “the statewide license and record database established pursuant to [NY Penal Law § 400.02] and the statewide license and record database established for ammunition sales are operational,” followed by a 30-day period after which the ammunition background check requirement is in effect. In a classic example of the New York’s legislature’s signature style of “pass gun control laws first, figure out if they work later,” it became apparent once the SAFE Act was passed that the ammunition background check mandate was unachievable at the time. The-then police superintendent advised that his agency lacked the technology to implement the requirement and had “no idea when ammunition background checks… will begin across the state.”

A further complication is that the entire ammunition background check database project was placed in abeyance due to a 2015 memorandum of understanding (MOU). The agreement, entered into by the Cuomo Administration and then-Republican Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, promised that no state money would be spent on implementing the ammunition background check database until a cost plan had been approved by the parties. The MOU further stipulated that any certification of the database as operational would not be made until the parties had approved a plan on its implementation. Last year, however, Governor Kathy Hochul indicated she was aware of the “old MOU that was signed related to ammunition sales after laws were passed the decade ago, it was an administration document between the prior administration and the Senate Republicans,” but decided to ignore it – “we are literally tearing it up and New York will now require and conduct background checks for all ammunition purchases.”

There is no indication on either the state police or the governor’s websites that the certification of the statewide license and record database as operational has occurred. However, the NY State Police website currently advises that the “background check requirements imposed on all retail sellers of ammunition are scheduled to take effect on September 13, 2023.”

STRIKE & SHOOT; September 13th

Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:26:18 GMT

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023, federally-licensed dealers in firearms in New York will be closed for business because they will be on strike. The Second Amendment “to keep” - of “to keep and bear arms” - will go dark. Without dealers, there will be nothing for you “to keep.” No firearms. No ammunition. We’re doing it to raise public awareness of unjust laws passed summer 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. On September 13, 2023, the NYSP will attempt to launch its new firearms and ammunition background checks and it will start the build of the first-ever in U.S. history single database of gun owners.

Will you stand in solidarity?

At noon on September 13, we’re asking you to stand in solidarity with dealers fighting for your Second Amendment rights, your privacy, your Heller-McDonald-NYSRPA v. Bruen. Will you please go to your local rod & gun club, your local range, your local sportsmen’s association property, and fire a round. Make this the “Shot Heard ‘Round the State II.” We did this ten years ago after the “SAFE Act.” We need to do it again.

Hochul-Nigrelli Letter To Dealers

Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:24:18 GMT

Aug 20

Written By Paloma Capanna

It’s Sunday morning. I thought that waking up would make reaching out to y’all one step easier. Even singing “Try that in a Small Town” as I walked in the ADK this morning was no salve. So let’s just get this over with.

I was yesterday texted a copy of this “official” letter from Hochul and Nigrelli, engaged in conversations, absorbed it, and thought I might hear from more than this one dealer who opened the mail to this letter. It’s a British thing, but I don’t believe in delivering serious news in the dark or on a Sunday morning, before we’ve had a chance to go to church and ground ourselves to our family. At least one of you dealers is sending a granddaughter off to college today, but I want you to have this afternoon to read through this letter from NYS Governor Kathleen Hochul and Acting Superintendent Stephen Nigrelli, received yesterday by an FFL trying to do business in New York.

It appears this letter is intended by Hochul and Nigrelli to constitute official dealer notification.

There are a number of highly critical legal points to be made about this Hochul-Nigrelli letter – and those are going straight to the NYS Attorney’s Office 9:01 a.m. tomorrow. I’ll share that as the next day or two gets on.

I’m pushing out the Hochul-Nigrelli letter to my website for your FREE download, review, and discussion because I’m wanting to hear your thoughts as our conversation switches from gossip to go-mode. It’ll also save you the surprise as you open tomorrow’s mail. When you get yours, would you kindly scan both the letter and the envelope showing the postmark date and e-mail them to me as PDFs to paloma[@]2AMPatriot[dot]com? I thank all of you helping me to develop a dataset.

Wednesday, September 13, 2023. We’re calling for all dealers and pawnbrokers to go on strike, at least for that one day. And we’re calling for everyone to fire a single shot in solidarity at high noon, as part of the “Shot Heard ‘Round the State, II.”

I’m ready, if you wish, to start adding your names, your shop names, your rod & gun clubs, your sporting organizations, your churches, your 4-H. Anyone in support who wants to stand up and add their name to the STRIKE + SHOOT page of my website, just send me a message.

We’re not near as small as they think and we have voice. You simply have to decide to take it out of mothballs, where we all put it, along side our broken hearts, when our efforts against the “SAFE Act” failed at a time when it was Cuomo and a GOP NYS Senate majority. This is too important to look backwards, and any number of you – God bless you! – only got your FFL after the “SAFE Act” and some of you even since the 10-bill anti-gun bill package was shoved through by Hochul last summer.

Please stand with the Plaintiffs in Gazzola v. Hochul, and please stand strong. This is the opening shot we knew was coming, and now we have it in writing after three weeks of the NYSP-JTTF slinking their way into our shops. Keep shining that light on everything they’re trying to pull over on dealers and pawnbrokers who are fighting hard to protect everyone’s Second Amendment rights in this modern America.

Onward.

The First Shot Is Fired

Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:22:10 GMT

The First Shot is Fired

Did you hear it yesterday? A dealer opened his mail and found the “official” letter to dealers from NYS Governor Kathleen Hochul and the Acting Superintendent of the NYS Police. No date filled in. A postmark that means it was USPS posted too late to meet statutory notification requirements. Legal errors. It’s a damned mess to untangle into a coherent letter to the opposing NYS Attorney General.

For now, on this day we should be at rest, I apologize, but must ask you to share this e-blast with its links to everyone you know, especially your local dealers and pawnbrokers in firearms. There were 1,791 of them when I filed Gazzola v. Hochul back on November 1, 2022. We’ve already lost some, and, with a heavy heart, I know we’re about to lose more. It’s up to us to pull together to do everything we can to be the counterveiling force in support of these brave FFL owners and employees who are fighting to stay open so that we all can exercise our fundamental, first-class Second Amendment rights, here in New York. It’s the modern civil rights movement, and this is what’s being asked of us.

Congresswoman Claudia Tenney District 24: Defends Hunting and Archery Classes in Schools

Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:14:27 GMT

Congresswoman Claudia Tenney District 24:

Defends Hunting and Archery Classes in Schools

Colorado gun law raising age to purchase gun to 21 set to take effect Monday

Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:23:04 GMT

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-gun-law-raising-age-purchase-gun-21-set-take-effect-monday

Colorado gun law raising age to purchase gun to 21
set to take effect Monday

A Colorado gun reform law that will prohibit people under 21 years old from purchasing a gun will go into effect on Monday.

SB23-169, one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in the spring, will prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing a gun, with exceptions for active members of the U.S. armed forces, peace officers and people certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training board.

Local gun shops and shooting ranges say the new law might lower profit, but they are more worried about the people who will be unable to protect themselves.

"People under the age of 21 are no longer going to have the right to defend themselves with firearms," DCF Guns store manager Kevin Day told Fox 21. "The best thing we can do is continue to educate the public."

COLORADO GOVERNOR SIGNS GUN CONTROL BILLS AFTER LGBTQ NIGHTCLUB MASSACRE

Some gun groups, including the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, have filed lawsuits against Democrat Gov. Jared Polis and the State of Colorado in an attempt to strike down the new law, The organization filed a Temporary Restraining Order to potentially prevent the law from going into effect, arguing that it is unconstitutional.

RMGO said if people are allowed to vote when they are 18, they should be allowed to purchase a gun.

"You can be drafted into the military. You can go and die for your country, but you can’t own a gun. That’s just wrong," RMGO Executive Director Taylor Rhodes told Fox 21.

State sponsors of the legislation said it is meant to protect young people, not to criminalize responsible gun owners.

COLORADO'S DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE PASSES PACKAGE OF GUN CONTROL MEASURES

SB23-169 is one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in the spring.

"This isn't trying to infringe on anybody’s rights … What it comes down to is saving lives, we know that youth suicide has increased," Majority House Leader Monica Duran, Majority House Leader told the outlet. "We know domestic violence has increased."

Duran, a Democrat, said limiting access to guns is a way to improve public safety.

"The easier it is to access something, the more likelihood that it can be used in a way that could be detrimental to not just our youth but our community," she said.

The sorta-secret world of New York's high school trap shooting clubs

Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:07:12 GMT

The sorta-secret world of New York's high school trap shooting clubs by Cam Edwards | 4:30 PM on July 22, 2023

Bernardo De Niz

We’ve written before about the trap shooting’s explosive growth in popularity in states like Minnesota, where it’s the fastest growing high school sport, but I confess that I had no idea it was so popular in the anti-gun state of New York until I ran across a letter to the editor in the Rome Sentinel. Bohdan Rabarsky, the chairman of Oneida/Herkimer chapter of SCOPE, wrote to the paper with a very good question: why hasn’t the New York State Public High School Athletic Association recognized trap shooting as an official sport?

Rabarsky explains that, lacking that designation, high schools that want to put together teams have to operate them as clubs, not official athletic programs. And despite the state’s attempt to shut the shooting sports out of official recognition, the number of clubs and participants are growing by leaps and bounds.

This is a sport that’s not only the fastest-growing sport in New York State, but the safest sport, as there’s never been a recorded injury since its inception 10 years ago.

Participants are required to take a gun safety course, be certified and wear safety glasses and eye protection.

Shotguns are kept in locked cases or at gun clubs and only loaded when it’s time to fire at a clay target.

Teams are made up of boys or girls, or can be co-ed, with boys and girls competing on the same team.

Students with disabilities are encouraged to participate, as speed and strength are not required for membership to a shooting club.

In June, the Bridgeport Rod & Gun Club held the New York State championship where more than 1,500 students participated.

1,500 kids isn’t quite Minnesota territory, where about 8,000 student-athletes compete in the state trap shooting championship, but that’s still a lot more than I would have expected. Honestly, I never even thought about any high school-sponsored shooting sports programs in New York because I figured the state would have put the kibosh on that long ago. Let’s hope that no anti-gunner stumbled across Rabarsky’s report or we may soon see legislation to that effect in Albany.

Rabarsky says that most of the clubs are in rural high schools, which may have trouble fielding football, baseball, or even basketball teams, and that trap shooting “fills a void” that would otherwise be left unmet. I’m willing to bet that there’d be interest from students in larger high schools as well, however. One of the great things about the shooting sports is that there’s generally room for everyone, at least at the high school level, so you don’t have to worry about riding the bench or never getting a chance to actually participate outside of practice. If you’re on the team then you’re competing, which simply isn’t the case with most high school athletic programs.

That’s not the only benefit. As Radarsky points out, trap shooting is incredibly safe, and teaches kids how to be safe and responsible with firearms. Do we want kids learning about guns from video games and social media, or do we want them to get instruction on real gun safety in a safe and controlled environment? The abstinence-based approach mandated by gun control activists isn’t working out that great, so why not try something that’s both educational and fun instead?

I think it’s the last part that’s a deal-breaker for the anti-gunners, who have targeted youth shooting sports from California to Massachusetts in recent years. The gun control groups make no bones about wanting fewer gun owners, and one way to do that is to discourage any and all reasons for owning one, from self-defense to the shooting sports. Many of those 1,500 kids who took part in the New York State Championship may go on to own guns as adults, for any number of reasons that are entirely unacceptable to the Shannon Watts’ of the world, who view the shooting sports a gateway drug to gun ownership.

Any attempt to gain official recognition for New York’s high school trap teams is likely to hit a brick wall of bureaucracy, but if the effort inspired other high schools to at least adopt trap shooting clubs it might be worth the effort… at least if it didn’t result in the state’s anti-gun legislative majority banning the clubs from operating as well.

Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:34:12 GMT

Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

BY KATE LISA NEW YORK STATE
PUBLISHED 7:11 PM ET JUL. 10, 2023

Advocates on both sides of the gun rights debate are preparing for the next battle in interpreting Second Amendment rights and its potential impact on state laws.

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall to decide if a 1994 federal statute prohibiting anyone actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from having firearms is constitutional. It comes after a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel threw out the conviction of Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who was convicted of possessing firearms while under such a restraining order.

Judges cited last year's Supreme Court ruling and decided though Rahimi discharged his weapon in public five times in two months while subject to the order, it did not invalidate his constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The court argued no similar laws in U.S. history confiscated guns from people who were violent against their spouse or partner.

"If you were married to a man and he abused you, you had every right to beat your wife, as long as you didn't leave permanent marks," said SUNY Cortland political science professor Robert Spitzer. "That was the legal standard 200 years ago."

Spitzer has written five books on gun control and is an expert on national gun policy; he's skeptical the Supreme Court will completely strike down the nearly 30-year-old federal statute.

"I think the country could not tolerate such a decision," he added. "I think the court would have a hard time coming up with five votes on behalf of that decision."

Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, colonies and U.S. states had laws where a person found hunting in the wrong place at the wrong time could have their firearms taken away, Spitzer said.

"So would that provide a valid historical analogue to modern domestic violence laws? To me, the answer would clearly be yes," he said.

Spitzer added he'll be surprised if the court upholds the domestic violence law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with the modernized national view of abuse — pointing to several studies linking more violent domestic abuse outcomes to gun ownership.

Abusers with access to firearms are five times more likely to kill their partners, according to a control study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

About 4.5 million American women alive today, or 1 in 27, have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun, according to an article in the National Library of Medicine.

"Time and time again, evidence shows that when a domestic abuser has access to a gun, the likelihood that their intimate partner will end up being shot and killed is extremely high," said Rebecca Fischer, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "However, the courts are, you know, wondering whether or not they can actually take that evidence into account."

Advocates like Fischer who fight for stricter gun control laws in the state say the highest court's decision will be pivotal in future analysis of gun laws across the nation. Last year, the Supreme Court overhauled a long-standing New York law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and ruled Americans have the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. State lawmakers returned days later to strengthen New York's Red Flag Laws, which allow police to seize firearms of someone who is posing a danger to themselves or other people.

Lawmakers last June also swiftly updated the state's concealed carry law limiting the public places where guns could be taken, and stricter requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit.

"The decision will not only have implications for individuals who are threatened by intimate partners and have suffered from domestic abuse, but it also could have implications on how courts analyze gun laws and whether or not gun laws across the country are still considered constitutional under the Second Amendment," Fischer said.

SCOTUS' next gun rights decision, not expected until late spring 2024, will likely reinvigorate challenges to the state's emboldended Red Flag Law. A federal lawsuit is pending against the updated concealed carry law.

Advocates fighting to protect Second Amendment rights, like state Rifle & Pistol Association Executive Director Tom King, say the stricter law can lead to the confiscation of a person's firearms without legal due process.

"Your firearms are taken away without ever having gone to a judge — there's no search warrants, no nothing," King said Monday. "They come in, and they take your firearms. It's no different than if somebody came in and they said, 'We heard you were speeding,' and they come in and take your car away. I mean, where does it end?"

King is hopeful about the Supreme Court's review of the 1994 federal domestic violence statute, arguing the current rule is too broad. He says each person's case should be reviewed separately instead of the way the federal domestic violence law paints every person with the same brush.

"I think that each case has to be looked at individually," he said. "And I think that's what the Supreme Court is doing right now."

Advocates on both sides of the discussion agree on a single point: The Supreme Court's decision will help clarify last year's gun rights ruling, and define the new standards for judges across the nation when deciding on legal challenges to existing firearm restrictions.

"This new decision will provide some clarity on how to analyze gun laws that, right now, courts are all over the map in terms of how to interpret Bruen," Fischer said. "...If they find a law, if they utilize a law that is comparable to the federal laws that qualifies is historical and fits within the new framework of analysis, then that will give courts going forward more guidance on what type of historical laws should be applied to uphold gun laws in the future."

King is confident law-abiding gun owners in the state will be ready to comply with the court's final decision — regardless of the outcome.

"They are the highest court in the land," he said. "Whatever decision the Supreme Court makes, I will live with and I'm sure the gun owners will live with, unlike Gov. Kathy Hochul, who couldn't live with the Bruen decision."

Lawmakers passed a series of bills before the end of session groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence pushed hard for, including to expand the state's victims' compensation law, the Grieving Families Act and a measure to increase Medicaid reimbursement for violence prevention programs.

Hochul has until the end of the year to decide to sign them into law. She has not shared her position on the legislation or if she intends to sign the measures, Fischer said.

Violent Career Criminal Breaks Into His Last Home

Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:50:13 GMT

Violent Career Criminal Breaks Into His Last Home, Runs Into Armed Mama Bear Who Doesn’t Hesitate to Protect Her Children

By Warner Todd Huston, The Western Journal
A mother protecting her children in Louisiana is a recent example of the type of “good guy with a gun” story that liberals truly hate because it proves that guns save lives.

A convicted felon who had just perpetrated another string of violent crimes chose the wrong house to invade and the wrong woman to attack in Hammond, Louisiana, earlier this year when he met a mother who was determined to protect her children, WVUE-TV reported.

The Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office was called to a home on Klein Road in Hammond, but when they got to the residence, the action was already over.

The officers discovered the body of Robert Rheams, 51, just after 5 a.m. on a Sunday morning in January, after he tried to break into the home where a woman resided with her two young children.

The brave mother told the officers that Rheams broke in while the family was sleeping. According to WVUE, the convict was wearing a ski mask and was armed with a shovel and a lug wrench.

The woman added that Rheams confronted her and threatened to harm her with his weapons. But the woman had other ideas. She pulled out her firearm to defend her family and gave Rheams a reason to suspect he had broken into the wrong house.

The criminal was pronounced dead at the scene by the parish coroner.

Officers also said that the home invasion seemed to be a random act and that the attacker and the homeowner had had no prior contact.

After investigating the incident, the police discovered that Rheams was in the midst of a crime spree that was abruptly ended by the woman protecting the lives and safety of her children.

Officers traced Rheams’ activity back to an earlier carjacking only blocks from the woman’s home.

According to the owner of the car, Rheams carjacked the driver at a local motel.

“During the drive, he started striking the driver with his fist and the driver ran into a ditch, causing the car to become stuck,” said Tangipahoa Chief Deputy Jimmy Travis. “The driver was able to exit the car and flee to safety.”

Rheams is also the suspect in a robbery several hours before all this that occurred at a deli on Saturday night, according to the report.

Travis added that the woman would not be charged for killing Rheams because she was merely exercising her Second Amendment rights to protect herself and her children from a violent home invader.

11 Defensive Gun Uses Show How Lawful Gun Owners ‘Get It Right’

Wed, 24 May 2023 13:20:51 GMT

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/12/11-defensive-gun-uses-show-how-lawful-gun-owners-get-it-right/?utm_source=TDS_Email

Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.” ............

Watchdog: IRS Spent $10M on Weapons, Ammo Since 2020

Thu, 04 May 2023 23:30:53 GMT

Newsmax: Watchdog: IRS Spent $10M on Weapons, Ammo Since 2020 by: Luca Cacciatore Tuesday, May 2, 2023

The Internal Revenue Service has invested $10 million on weapons, ammunition, and combat gear over the last few years as Republicans warn of a militarized tax agency.

Published last week, OpenTheBooks found that the IRS spent $2.3 million on ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $474,000 on rifles, $463,000 on shotguns, and $243,000 on body armor vests since 2020.

Another $467,000 were spent on duty tactical lighting, $354,000 on gear bags, and $1.3 million on "various other gear for criminal investigation agents" over that same period.

The spending spree comes despite the IRS appearing to be well-stocked before it, with the agency spending $35.2 million adjusted for inflation since 2006 on guns, ammo, and military-style equipment, the watchdog determined.

Republicans have frequently slammed the Biden administration for empowering the IRS, which received more than $80 billion in new funding as part of the $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act signed last year.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California led his new Republican majority in January to vote to rescind over $70 billion of that new funding. However, the legislation has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

"Do you make $75,000 or less? Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you — with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k," McCarthy warned on Twitter in August.

According to the New York Post, the IRS has defended its requirement that agents carry military-style weapons because of their consistent involvement in organized crime, drug, and gang investigations.

The Treasury Department has also claimed the IRS requires 86,852 new employees over the next decade, which conservatives like McCarthy believe will be used to target everyday Americans.

Federal Judge Halts State’s New ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

Mon, 01 May 2023 15:32:34 GMT

Federal Judge Halts State’s New ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban, Cites Likely Second Amendment Violation

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/federal-judge-halts-states-new-assault-weapon-ban-cites-likely-second-amendment-violation/

FL Sheriff Commends Store Clerk Who Shot Robbery Suspect 8 Times

Mon, 01 May 2023 15:08:44 GMT

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/04/30/fl-sheriff-commends-store-clerk-who-shot-robbery-suspect-8-times/

The Footnote to End All Gun Control

Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:10:26 GMT

The Footnote to End All Gun Control by John Crump|Apr. 3rd, 2023 According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification. With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Footnote 11 reads: “The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Gun Confiscation Around The World

Mon, 03 Apr 2023 19:31:37 GMT

Gun Confiscation Around The World

SCOPE Annual Members Meeting, Saturday April 29, 2023, 10 AM

Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:03:39 GMT

Click here for a printable Pdf copy

Three New York Congressmembers Want House of Representatives to Label NY Pistol Law Unconstitutional

Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:41:21 GMT

Three New York Congressmembers Want House of Representatives to Label NY Pistol Law Unconstitutional

Geneva, NY, United States / Finger Lakes Daily News Ed Vivenzio Jan 17, 2023

Three New York Congressmembers are urging the House of Representatives to call out New York’s concealed carry pistol law as unconstitutional.

Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Elise Stefanik (NY-2), and Nick Langworthy (NY-23) were joined by Darrell Issa (CA-48) to reintroduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional.

The CCIA was passed last July in response to the June US Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s previous “may issue” pistol permitting scheme in the case of NYSRPA v Bruen.

Below are statements from the three New York Congressmembers:

“The ability to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “New York State’s new concealed carry law is just another way that Kathy Hochul is working to limit New Yorker’s Constitutional rights and attack the Second Amendment. Last June, the Supreme Court repealed New York’s overly restrictive concealed carry laws, and instead of respecting the Court’s opinion, Governor Hochul chose to enact another unconstitutionally restrictive law. This resolution affirms our belief that New York’s latest law is unconstitutional and that state governments should support our Second Amendment rights, not undermine them.”

“Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values,” Congresswoman Stefanik said. “We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the previous concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

“As I have said from Day One, the concealed carry law is Unconstitutional and does absolutely nothing to make New Yorkers safe. Albany’s obsession with constantly targeting law-abiding gun owners while allowing violent criminals to have free rein on our streets would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly. I am proud to join with my colleagues in standing up against our dictatorial state government and will do everything in my power to protect New York’s Second Amendment rights,” said Congressman Nick Langworthy.

Who is Going to Blink First?

Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:15:40 GMT

Who is Going to Blink First? New York or the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision in Bruen Regains Public Approval

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 17:17:06 GMT

Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision in Bruen Regains Public Approval by Dean Weingarten, Ammoland|Dec. 7th, 2022

Before the Supreme Court decision on Bruen, the average of the five polls was:

Heard of and favor the decision: 65%

Heard of and oppose the decision: 35%

After the decision, the average results of the two polls were:

Heard of and favor the decision: 56.5%

Heard of and oppose the decision: 43.4%

Strongly favor 36%

Somewhat favor 28%

Somewhat oppose 19%

Strongly oppose 16%

Opinion:

The Supreme Court decision made on June 22, 2022, restoring the protections of right to bear arms outside the home by the Second Amendment, has bounced back to what it was before the decision was announced.

On November 30, 2022, a Marquette University Law School poll was released showing the results of this question, from September of 2021 through September of 2022.

The question was:

Table 11: Favor or oppose ruling that Second Amendment protects right to possess a gun outside the home. Among those with an opinion.

There were five polls taken before the decision was released on June 22, and two taken after the decision was released, one during July 5-12, and one during September 7-14.

Marquette does not show any more polls on this question after September 14, 2022.

A new question was formulated and used in a Marquette poll for the week of November 15-22, five months after the Bruen decision. The heading for the category was: J2: Expand 2nd Amendment. The question was:

The new question was for all respondents, whether they had heard of the decision or not. 28% of 1004 respondents had not heard of the case. The question divides the response into four categories instead of only two. Here are the results from the Marquette table:

The total in favor (64%) and total opposed (36%) are incredibly close to the opinions found before the decision (65%/35%). They are easily within the accuracy limits of the poll.

About twice as many people are in favor of the Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms outside the home, as are opposed to it. What happened in between? Why did the numbers briefly drop to 56.5%/43.5%?

The dominant media came out with a series of articles after the Bruen decision. The articles claimed the decision would lead to more violent crime. The Washington post published a “news” article in the Outlook section by an advocate of arms restrictions, John Donahue, titled:

The Supreme Court’s gun decision will lead to more violent crime

The Outlook section was discontinued in September 2022.

It seems likely the onslaught of negative articles about the Bruen decision swayed some people. This could account for the 8-9% swing in opinion against the decision.

Then, articles started appearing about the results of the decision. Articles showing lower courts using the decision to restore the right to carry on private property; the right to carry in public places; the right to bear arms for those under a mere indictment; or under a mere restraining order. Articles such as those might have had an effect.

It is possible those who had not heard of the decision were much more favorable than those who had heard of it. The latest poll included both those who had heard of the decision and those who had not.

The right to keep and bear arms is a popular right. In a poll done in April of 2021, about 73-74% of those polled considered

“the 2nd Amendment is one of our most important and cherished civil rights in the U.S. Constitution.”

The Second Amendment costs residents of the United States very little. The effect on violent crime seems to be very small, for or against. It mostly has an effect on the attitude of the people who exercise it. If a person has the means to protect themselves,their family, and their community, they feel substantially less dependent on the government.

Limited government power means they have the power of their own.

Nothing proves the government is limited by the Constitution like robust protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

With a mostly originalist/textualist Supreme Court for the first time in over 80 years,
the rights protected by the Second Amendment are being restored!

One thing that ties recent mass shootings? Harassment

Sun, 04 Dec 2022 01:59:21 GMT

One thing that ties recent mass shootings? Harassment

One thing I think we do a terrible job of when it comes to preventing mass shootings is trying to get a peek inside the minds of the killers.

People don’t just wake up one day and suddenly decide to slaughter people by the gross. That kind of pathology likely develops over time, which means it can be prevented from ever happening, preferably without a single restriction on any civil liberty.

In fairness, there have been looks at what mass shooters have in common. They found things like treatment for mental illness and broken homes as common themes.

Yet in looking at recent shootings, I found something else. A history of harassment.

I’m not talking about them necessarily harassing others, but instead being the victims of harassment.

Let’s start with the University of Virginia shooter. He allegedly killed three of the school’s football players after a field trip.

However, it also appears that he reported to his father that he was the victim of bullying.

The alleged killer at Club Q in Colorado Springs also dealt with harassment, and on a much larger scale. In fact, entire legions on the internet enjoyed harassing him.

In Chesapeake, the killer there left a note outlining his grievances, which included claims of being harassed by others.

That’s three recent killers who were either being harassed or felt as if they were, but they’re not the only ones.

In Uvalde, for example, the killer there had a history of being harassed, with some actually calling him a school shooter.

Now, understand that nothing about this is an attempt to excuse these killings. It’s not. There’s literally no valid reason to respond to harassment like this with homicidal action.

But if we’re ever going to uncover the roots of these horrific crimes, we simply have to discuss some uncomfortable things. That includes any potential role that harassment of these individuals might play in this.

It’s not an excuse and I’m not necessarily saying the harassers are responsible for these crimes. No, that responsibility rests on those who pull the trigger, as it always has.

Yet on the same token, if this is a unifying thread, then it’s a thread we as a society can work together to severe.

It’s one thing to be in the public sphere and receive harsh reactions to what you’ve offered up. I’ve been there myself and while it sucks, it’s the price you pay for playing in that sandbox.

But these cases appear to be different. These are people who were reportedly being harassed without that kind of action.

Now, I also have to admit that harassment may not be the issue, but a persecution complex. Maybe many of these people who reported being harassed really weren’t. It’s possible that they just thought the criticism they received was harassment when it was really nothing of the sort.

Sure, we know at least some were actually harassed and bullied, but it’s possible this isn’t a unifying thread among mass killers. I don’t think it is, necessarily, but I wouldn’t be intellectually honest if I didn’t concede the possibility.

Either way, this is something that the supposed experts should be looking at.

Too bad they can’t look beyond pushing for gun control.

By Tom Knighton | Bearing Arms 5:30 PM on December 02, 2022

When it comes to state’s new gun law, handwriting is on the (courthouse) wall

Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:57:45 GMT

When it comes to state’s new gun law, handwriting is on the (courthouse) wall
November 16, 2022' Rod Watson, The Buffalo News

buffalonews.com/news/local/rod-watson-when-it-comes-to-state-s-new-gun-law-handwriting-is-on-the/article_ce227920-6576-11ed-ae9b-af3d1d202a58.html

The advice is both timeless and priceless: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Of course, when taxpayers are handing you a gold-plated shovel and political ego is on the line, that’s easier said than done. Maybe that’s why the state appealed – and won a stay of – last week’s federal court ruling that eviscerated New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Despite the stay issued Tuesday, the detailed rationale in last week’s ruling makes clear it’s time for Gov. Kathy Hochul and other state officials to pull the plug on their efforts to defend the indefensible. Whistling past the judicial graveyard is not a viable legal strategy.

Hochul pushed through the CCIA earlier this year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s previous law requiring law-abiding gun owners to demonstrate “proper cause” to protect themselves with a concealed weapon outside the home. The state’s response – despite clear warnings in the high court’s decision – was the CCIA and its near-total ban on carrying a concealed handgun anywhere in the state.

But in a 184-page decision last week that was both thorough in its research and appropriately caustic in its dismissal of the state’s flimsiest justifications, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby blocked enforcement of most provisions of the new law.

In the earlier case, the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines essentially saying that any restrictions on gun rights must be analogous to those in widespread use when the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment making that applicable to the states were ratified. Using that template, Suddaby blocked enforcement of the new law in parks, zoos, theaters, restaurants serving alcohol, public assemblies or protests and a host of other so-called “sensitive locations” where the state wanted to make self-defense off limits.

The judge was at times caustic in his derision, noting for instance, that public protests often move from one location to another. That means, he noted, that “under this vague regulation, a law-abiding responsible license holder … might suddenly find himself ... in the middle of a protest that has come to his location." His only alternative? "He would have to instantly flee lest the protesters render him a felon, which would appear to be a novel rule in America.”

He was similarly unsparing in striking down another ridiculous provision barring concealed carry on private property – including businesses – unless the property owner posts conspicuous signage allowing it. To justify that restriction, the state – in what can only be called a reach – cited 18th and 19th century anti-poaching laws meant to prevent people from taking game off of someone else’s property.

“Rest assured,” Suddaby noted, “none of the six Plaintiffs in this action has alleged that he has been injured by not being able to hunt turkey and deer (with his handgun) inside commercial establishments on privately owned property that is open for business to the public.”

Your subscription makes our reporting possible.

Such provisions involving “compelled speech” also run into First Amendment problems, the judge noted, as do other provisions requiring permit applicants to divulge their social media information. He also blocked enforcement of the law’s unconstitutionally vague “good moral character” requirement, as well as provisions mandating that permit applicants reveal the contact info of other adults living in the home.

In short, even while dismissing Hochul as one of the defendants because the governor herself does not have enforcement responsibility, he made mincemeat of almost all of the state’s arguments.

That bodes well for concealed-carry permit holders – who have already jumped through bureaucratic hoops including background checks and training requirements – once the stays are lifted and the case is finally decided on its merits.

Suddaby made clear last week that, with a few exceptions, the state’s case has no merit.

Instead, the CCIA brings to mind the old Jack Benny line. When confronted by a robber demanding “Your money or your life,” the notorious tightwad paused before replying “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”

Law-abiding New Yorkers, after jumping through all the hoops required to carry a concealed weapon, should not have to face a similar dilemma, being forced to choose between risking their lives or risking arrest. Suddaby clearly agrees.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin’s narrower-than-expected loss last week was based in large part on perceptions of crime. It’s hard not to believe some of those defecting voters recoiled at the thought of being left unarmed at the mercy of criminals who, by definition, will ignore the CCIA.

A Hochul spokesman noted the law is being defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, not outside counsel, so it’s not costing state taxpayers extra. But those resources still could be better spent fighting actual crime rather than creating a new class of “criminal” out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

While we laud Election Day losers who had the good sense – and grace – to concede, the governor and state Democrats should take a lesson and read the handwriting on the courthouse wall. It’s time to drop this Quixotic quest to disarm law-abiding permit holders who have never been the problem.

Instead of continuing to appeal, it’s time for Hochul and her fellow Democrats to stop digging – and let the courts bury this blatantly unconstitutional law.

How NY’s new gun laws will impact hunting seasonTraveling outdoor enthusiasts who fail to comply with new legislation could face criminal charges

Thu, 03 Nov 2022 13:41:25 GMT

How NY’s new gun laws will impact hunting season Traveling outdoor enthusiasts who fail to comply with new legislation could face criminal charges by Jeff Murray

Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin USA TODAY NETWORK

Outdoor enthusiasts who carry firearms afield for hunting in New York this fall need to be aware of new gun laws that will affect their activities.

State lawmakers passed two new packages of gun legislation this year.

One was in response to a mass shooting in Buffalo and creates new requirements for the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

The other, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down New York’s concealed carry law, includes provisions regarding the transportation and storage of firearms.

Both new laws, and the second bill in particular, could have an impact on hunters who travel afield in pursuit of deer and other game.

Hunters who fail to comply with the new requirements could inadvertently find themselves facing criminal charges.

What is the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act?’

In June, the U.S Supreme Court threw out a New York law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves, ruling the law violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In response, Gov. Kathy Hochul called the state legislature back into special session and lawmakers passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Most of the provisions of the new law deal with where concealed carry permit holders can legally carry handguns and where they can’t, but there are also new rules involving storage and transportation of all firearms.

The law requires any firearms left unattended in a vehicle to be stored in a lockable plastic or metal, hard-sided gun case or safe, and hidden from view.

The firearm can also be secured with a trigger lock or cable lock in lieu of a locking case, as long as it’s out of sight.

If the hunter lives with anyone under 18 or anyone who is prohibited from possessing a gun, all firearms must either be secured with a gun locking device such as a trigger lock that makes them incapable of being fired, or securely locked in a safe or secure container which is locked with a key, keypad, or combination.

Are semiautomatic rifles still legal for hunting?

As of Sept. 4, anyone who wants to take ownership of a semiautomatic rifle in New York must be at least 21 years old and must first apply for and acquire a New York State semiautomatic rifle license, similar to the requirement for a pistol permit to possess a handgun.

However, a person of any legal hunting age may temporarily possess or borrow a legal semi-automatic rifle for hunting.

“The new law only applies to the new purchase in New York state of a semiautomatic rifle,” said Steuben County Sheriff Jim Allard, whose office is among law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement of the new laws. “Any lawful owners of a semiautomatic rifle continue to be lawful owners.” How will the laws be enforced?

Several hunting seasons are open now, but the biggest influx of hunters going afield will take place on opening day of regular deer season, scheduled for Nov. 19 across most of the state.

Steuben County annually leads New York state in deer harvest, and people flock to the county from all over New York and beyond to hunt there, so Allard is well aware of issues that often crop up during hunting season.

Allard agrees with the concept of secure transport of firearms, but he doesn’t believe imposing criminal charges for violations is the best solution.

“I believe that it is always good to store valuables out of sight in a vehicle as a best practice to deter theft,” he said. “I find it much better to gain compliance through education than enforcement, utilizing the arm of enforcement only after education and counseling has failed.”

The state Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for enforcing laws related to hunting, and that will include the new laws affecting firearms transport.

“Should potential violations be observed, DEC’s environmental conservation police officers (ECOs) and forest rangers investigate all incidents and crimes to the fullest extent possible within the legal parameters allowed, consistent with the particular situation and circumstances,” DEC said in a statement.

Will the new measures deter crime?

Gun control has been a hotly-debated issue in New York for years, at least since the legislature passed the SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) in response to the December 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders say the new legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of New Yorkers after the Supreme Court invalidated the former concealed carry law.

“The bill does have several improvements that are intended to ensure fairness, consistency and due process,” Sen. Brian Kavanagh, D-Manhattan, said about the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. But Republican lawmakers said the changes won’t stop criminals from misusing firearms, and some law enforcement officials are also skeptical.

“It has been our experience that far more guns are stolen from hunting cabin burglaries than from vehicles,” Allard said. “To my knowledge, no data exists that would lead a reasonable person to believe that violent crimes result from a lack of vehicle security while hunting.”

DEC officials agree firearm thefts from vehicles during hunting season are not common.

How can I learn more?

Education about the new laws is an important component, according to DEC, which has done extensive outreach through its website, mailings, newsletters and public interaction with conservation officers, license issuing agents and hunter education instructors.

Information about the law’s changes can be found on both DEC’s website, dec.ny.gov, and the state’s gun safety website, gunsafety.ny.gov. New Yorkers can also call 1-855-LAW-GUNS for questions about guns or assistance with form submissions.

State land that was open to hunting in the past remains open under the new legislation, DEC said.

For more information about state land open to hunting, go to dec.ny.gov/ outdoor/7844.html.

A pair of Southern Tier hunters heads into the woods for opening day of deer season.

New York Families; 2022 Election Guide

Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:20:55 GMT

2022 Election Guide

printable pdf: click HERE

Court decision on houses of worship as "sensitive locations"

Sun, 23 Oct 2022 02:37:59 GMT

The link below will download a Pdf copy of Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr.'s October 20 decision in the Hardaway v. Negrelli, case regarding houses of worship as "sensitive areas."

https://www.scopeny2a.org/resources/pdfs/601876312-Tro-Houses-of-Worship-Gun-Ruling.pdf

Press Release: Schuyler SCOPE holds Meet the Candidates Night

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:23:14 GMT

Press Release: Schuyler SCOPE holds Meet the Candidates Night

The Schuyler County Chapter of Shooters Committee on Political Education (S.C.O.P.E.) invited candidates for county, state and congressional office to attend its quarterly meeting Thursday (October 6) as a “Meet the Candidates Night.”

Candidates were given the opportunity to make a few brief remarks and answer questions from the membership. Over thirty members of S.C.O.P.E. and the general public were in the audience.

Among the topics addressed were each candidate’s belief in the right to keep and bear arms, a pending resolution of the Schuyler County legislature calling for the repeal of recent New York gun law changes, pistol permit procedures, emergency management plans, federal conceal carry laws and related issues. Each candidate in attendance affirmed his or her strong support for the Second Amendment.

The following Schuyler County candidates attended and addressed the audience:

• Holley Sokolowski, Republican Candidate for County Treasurer (unopposed)
• Carl Blowers, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District V)(unopposed)
• Phil Barnes, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District VI)(unopposed)

In the race for U.S. Congress, District NY-23:

· Republican congressional candidate Nick Langworthy appeared by campaign manager George McNerney.

· Democrat congressional candidate Max Della-Pia did not respond to SCOPE's invitation.

For the New York State Legislature:

· Incumbent Senator Tom O’Mara (R, unopposed) and incumbent Assembly member Phil Palmesano (R, unopposed) were both unable to attend due to prior commitments and sent their apologies.

S.C.O.P.E. is a non-partisan statewide 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to educating the public about firearm ownership, Second Amendment rights and legislation. The Schuyler County chapter’s meetings are held on the 1st Thursday of the month at 7:00 pm in January, March, May, October and as necessary at the Montour Falls Moose Lodge, 2096 Co Rd 14, Montour Falls, NY 14865.

****

Picture available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OgbucfdWXczCLPa7iCyZDRHSOamBIR7U/view?usp=sharing

Key parts of NY’s new gun law blocked by federal judge in Syracuse!

Thu, 06 Oct 2022 17:41:31 GMT

Key parts of NY’s new gun lKey parts of NY’s new gun law blocked by federal judge in Syracuseaw blocked by federal judge in Syracuse!

Updated: Oct. 06, 2022, 1:09 p.m.| Published: Oct. 06, 2022, 12:06 p.m.

NEW! Anne Hayes | ahayes@syracuse.com

Syracuse, N.Y. -- A federal judge in Syracuse has blocked enforcement of several parts of New York’s broad new gun law.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that several provisions of the state’s new gun law are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

He delayed the implementation of his decision for three business days, to allow the state to seek an appeals court’s ruling. Suddaby’s temporary restraining order is in effect until at least an Oct. 20 motion briefing in his court.

Suddaby blocked provisions of the law that outlined new requirements for background checks for gun permits, including the disclosure of all of an applicant’s social media accounts. He also blocked the bans on guns in some public and private properties.

His decision Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against six provisions listed in the law.

Suddaby took issue with the state’s new background check requirements. Four of the six provisions struck down related to tough requirements for an application or renewal of a license for concealed carry.

He rejected the provision that an applicant must have evidence to demonstrate they have “good moral character,” an attempt by the state to block guns from people with bad intent. Suddaby reversed the burden of proof, ruling that it’s up to the licensing agency to prove the applicant does not have good moral character.

Suddaby also ruled that the state cannot require applicants to have an in-person meeting with the licensing officer, disclose the names and contact information of all adults residing in their home or provide a list of all current and former social media accounts from the past three years.

Suddaby also reduced the new law’s broad bans on guns in public and private spaces.

Syracuse federal judge remains skeptical of NY gun law as he considers whether to quash it.

Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:36:58 GMT

Syracuse federal judge remains skeptical of NY gun law as he considers whether to quash it.

Updated: Sep. 29, 2022, 6:18 p.m.| Published: Sep. 29, 2022, 2:03 p.m. Syracuse Federal Building, home of the city's federal district courts.

By Douglass Dowty | ddowty@syracuse.com

Syracuse, NY — A federal judge in Syracuse on Thursday expressed doubt about the constitutionality of several parts of New York’s recent gun law as he heard arguments over whether to block its enforcement.

Why can’t religious congregations decide whether or not to allow guns into their houses of worship? Why are guns presumptively banned from private property without explicit permission from owners? How can the government order people to provide their social media accounts to apply for a gun license?

Those were among the concerns that U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby honed in on during hourlong arguments Thursday in Syracuse over whether he should temporarily ban the state from enforcing the new gun law, which took effect Sept. 1.

The judge is expected to rule anytime after telling the parties in the noon hour that he would issue a written decision.

During court, the judge voiced similar concerns to those he shared in his written opinion last month. Then he wrote that parts of the law were unconstitutional but said he couldn’t do anything about it yet. Those legal issues remained unresolved Thursday, with the state arguing that there still was no standing to challenge the law.

But the hearing also drilled down on questions of substance posed by the law.

For example, is a state law banning guns on private property without an owner’s permission a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Stephen Stamboulieh, a Mississippi lawyer who represents several gun owners challenging the law, argued that such a ban unfairly targets gun owners.

For example, a home or business that welcomes guests with legal guns might need to post a large sign stating that preference, making them targets to those who may disagree with their position, Stamboulieh argued.

He urged the judge to restore the previous New York standard, in which guns were allowed unless property owners banned them. “I don’t have a problem with a private property owner excluding someone because of a gun,” Stamboulieh said.

On the other hand, the fact some people are uncomfortable with guns isn’t a reason to infringe on constitutional rights, he said.

“Maybe some people have a problem with (others carrying guns), but this is constitutional carry,” Stamboulieh said.

James Thompson, a special counsel to the state Attorney General’s Office for Second Amendment litigation, responded that the state wasn’t banning anything. Private property owners were free to decide whether to allow guns or not. The default was simply “no” instead of “yes.”

For example, shouldn’t a homeowner know if a repairman coming into their house is carrying a gun? Thompson asked.

“Property owners get to decide, and they get to know whether guns are being carried on their property,” Thompson said, adding later: “The government does not take a position one way or the other.”

The opposing arguments highlighted a difference of opinion that carried throughout the court proceeding. Should the judge be considering whether the law carried the danger of being applied unconstitutionally? Or should the judge consider only if there is a valid, constitutional application of the law?

“The standard should not be ‘Can we imagine an unconstitutional application?’ ” Thompson argued. “It’s ‘Can we imagine a constitutional one?’ ”

Every law, if misused, could be carried out unconstitutionally, Thompson added.

The state’s sweeping gun law forces otherwise law-abiding citizens to violate the law to exercise their Second Amendment rights, Stamboulieh responded. The threat of law-abiding citizens being arrested for a felony, punishable by prison time, for exercising their constitutional right to carry a gun was a “dire” situation, he said.

“Three days might be the difference between getting arrested or not,” Stamboulieh said of why the judge needed to act fast to strike down the law.

Both sides debated at length whether or not an Oswego County pastor should be able to carry his gun in church. Pastor Joseph Mann of the Fellowship Baptist Church, in Parish, is carrying his gun in defiance of the law banning guns in places of worship. He’s one of the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit, but was not required to be in court Thursday.

Stamboulieh said that Mann, and others in his congregation, had received special church-specific training in carrying guns to protect the church from attack.

But Thompson argued that banning weapons from places of worship might help prevent attacks by mass shooters. Suddaby questioned that argument, pointing to Stamboulieh’s argument that some attacks on religious services had been ended by armed congregants.

Both sides also battled over the requirement that gun applicants turn over their social media accounts for the past three years for consideration.

Thompson, the state lawyer, said nothing in the law required people to turn over passwords or set their settings so an investigating officer could read their social-media posts.

But Stamboulieh noted that the law stated the purpose of turning over social media accounts was so investigators could confirm whether or not the applicant exhibited the character and conduct needed to responsibly carry a gun. How could that be determined if the investigator couldn’t read someone’s social media posts?

Suddaby asked the state lawyer whether he could think of any other situation in which the government asked someone for their social media accounts on a sworn application.

Thompson said he couldn’t think of another form, but pointed to a long history of laws that prohibit gun ownership by people deemed a threat to themselves or others. Historically, mass shooters have posted of their plans publicly on social media, he added.

In his previous decision, Suddaby had opined that forcing someone to reveal their social-media accounts to exercise their Second Amendment right could be in violation of that person’s First Amendment right to free speech, or even their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (if something potentially criminal was posted on their social media pages).

Beyond the myriad of arguments targeting different portions of the law, Suddaby also has to decide what his role will be in determining the way forward.

If the judge finds parts of the law unconstitutional, should he strike only those portions or the entire law? If he does strike down all or part of the law, should his ruling go into effect right away or remain stayed until the state has time to appeal?

Suddaby suggested that, if he does rule against the law, he might allow the state time to appeal before his order goes into effect. That would, in essence, leave the fate of the law to an appellate court.

Ultimately, regardless of what Suddaby decides, the state’s gun law appears headed for another review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The country’s high court set in motion the latest court battles by ruling New York’s gun licensing law unconstitutional, leading the state to respond by crafting the strictest gun laws in the country.

No more Brady Checks in Wayne County!

Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:12:49 GMT

No more Brady Checks in Wayne County!

September 16, 2022 by News10NBC

whec.com/top-news/no-more-brady-checks-in-wayne-county

WAYNE COUNTY, N.Y. (WHEC) — There’s been a change in the pistol permit process in Wayne County, outside of the new state laws that took effect on Sept. 1 of this year.

Up until now, a background check would have to be completed, every five years, in order for a simple amendment to be applied to a pistol permit. Such amendments included name or address changes, and disposal of weapons. In Wayne County, one could not make a handgun purchase unless he/she had a current five-year background check on file.

Those background checks, also known as Brady Checks, required a comprehensive check of several systems to see if a permit holder had been involved in any activity that would initiate suspension or revocation proceedings of that permit. That process could take up to several weeks, dependent upon the number of new applications submitted to the Sheriff’s Office. Various political races also affected the amount of Brady Checks that were submitted. The Brady process, combined with the regular course of business, conducting backgrounds for new pistol permit applicants lengthened the time it would take for a new applicant to acquire a permit.

Brady Checks, enacted in 1993, mandated background checks on firearm purchases. With informational safeguards within the criminal justice system, to include the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Sheriff Milby sought to streamline the redundancies of the system in Wayne County. After discussions with Wayne County Court Judges and the Wayne County Clerk, a decision was made to cease the process, effective immediately.

“Those amendments that were pending will no longer have to wait. County Clerk, Mike Jankowski will be sending those amendments out right away. All Brady checks on file have been grandfathered into this. To purchase a weapon on an existing permit, a NICS check will satisfy the process, and once the NICS check clears the purchase, you may file your amendment with the County Clerk,” said the Sheriff.

Sheriff Milby wishes to remind everyone that New York State still requires all Carry Concealed Permit Holders to recertify their permits every 3 years, which can be done online, and is not a background check process.

Despite new law, guns welcome in some shops

Thu, 04 Aug 2022 14:07:44 GMT

Despite new law, guns welcome in some shops by Thomas C. Zambito, Rockland/Westchester Journal News USA, Today Network

When he was a boy, Tzvi Waldman’s grandmother told him the story of the day the Nazis came to the house in the cornfields outside Budapest where she and her family had taken refuge with a family of non-Jews.

• She recalled dust landing on her face while she hid under the floorboards as armed Nazis searched the house for Jews.

• Guns represented an indelible image of horror etched into Waldman’s grandmother’s memory from the time she was a young girl.

And so Waldman understood when she grew uncomfortable years later when he spoke about guns as a means of self-defense, an interest which led him in recent weeks to a public stand against gun laws approved by the Democratic-led state Legislature.

Waldman, the head of the New York State Jewish Gun Club, has been handing out posters to businesses in the lower Hudson Valley, which alert customers that it’s OK to bring a concealed weapon into the store.

They read: “Concealed Carry is Welcome Here. Thank you for keeping our children safe. May Hashem continue to watch over us.”

The way Waldman sees it, armed self-defense is how all cultures – not just Jews − who flee oppression can take a stand to prevent the sort of tyranny they encountered in their homeland. And it’s an essential right amid a wave of mass shootings at

“We don’t want it to go back to where it was. ... As long as we have the right to bear arms no one can force us back into chambers − anyone into chambers.” Tzvi Waldman

synagogues, schools, a shopping mall and a Buffalo supermarket that have highlighted the vulnerabilities of private citizens.

“It’s embracing the American culture,” Waldman said. “We’re here. We’re safe. Let’s keep America safe. We don’t want it to go back to where it was. ... As long as we have the right to bear arms no one can force us back into chambers − anyone into chambers. It just can’t happen.”

The posters take aim at what Waldman regards as an overly restrictive set of gun laws signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul. The measures were approved in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a century-old law limiting citizen access to concealed weapons.

Among the restrictions in the new law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, is a ban on guns in “sensitive locations,” including schools and colleges, houses of worship, stadiums, theaters, parks, playgrounds, bars, subways and private property without the owner’s permission. Gov. Kathy Hochul said the provision would prevent hidden guns from turning up in public places.

Waldman’s signs address a caveat in the new law, which allows handguns or rifles on private property if the business owner posts a sign saying they’re welcome.

Pro-gun groups decry new gun control measures

Pro-gun advocates viewed the new laws as government overreach.

In a federal lawsuit, Carl Paladino, a Buffalo businessman running for a congressional seat in an upstate district, called the section of the law banning concealed weapons on private property “one of the most expansive infringements on the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense ever adopted by a state legislature.” Gunsmith Erik Melanson posted one of Waldman’s signs on the door of his business, Precision Gunsmiths, which shares space with Molino Arms in Valley Cottage, Rockland County.

“I think firearms are a great way to defend yourself and the people around you, which has been shown time and time again,” said Melanson, sporting a baseball cap adorned with a rifle and the phrase “Come and Take It.” He said the new laws have the potential to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight.

“The fact of the matter is none of these laws are going to stop criminals from being criminals,” Melanson said. “In fact, I’ve never met a criminal who cared about laws.”

‘Better than an ADT sticker’

Lucas McLaughlin, who owns a diner in Cobleskill, Schoharie County, was in Ace Hardware a few weeks back when he spotted a sticker that welcomes customers with concealed carry permits.

He put it on the door to the diner and was stunned by the response. People have been sending him messages saying they were going to travel a long distance to show their support.

“In all honesty it had nothing to do with or against the governor,” McLaughlin said. “The timing just happened to be perfect.”

He worried that families would hesitate to bring their children in because they’d fear everyone inside had a handgun.

But that hasn’t happened. The diner west of Albany has been in his family for three generations and is some 45 minutes from Conklin, the hometown of the man accused of killing 10 people in a racially-motivated attack at a Buffalo supermarket in May. “I slapped it on there and people were saying ‘Hey I’m really glad you put that there because of all the craziness,” McLaughlin said. The diner has been broken into three times in the middle of the night.

“I feel like if customers are allowed to carry their own protection, if God forbid someone were to walk in here and try doing something, we wouldn’t just have a bunch of hands up in the air,” he said. “I feel like (the sign) is better than an ADT sticker.”

Store owner who shot thief not a fan

Not all private business owners are on board with the ability to opt-out of the new law’s restrictions.

“I’m pro gun, don’t get me wrong,” said Barry Fixler, the owner of Barry’s Estate Jewelry in Bardonia, Rockland County. “But if every person carried a gun and somebody lost their temper, they’re gonna shoot each other.” In 2005, Fixler shot one of two men who came into his Route 304 store on Valentine’s Day pretending to be buying an engagement ring. “Don’t Move,” one of the men said. “I’ll ... kill you!” Fixler, who served as a Marine during Vietnam, slapped away the gun that was in his face and grabbed for a .38-caliber handgun he kept behind the counter. The 18-yearold he shot was paralyzed when the bullet struck his spinal cord. In order to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in New York, residents must go through a rigorous application process that includes training, fingerprinting and collecting character references.

Waldman’s group arranges training for those who want to protect themselves in their home or business, as well as those who want to work as security guard in synagogues.

“The minute (attackers) know somebody’s gonna shoot back at them and hurt them, they’re not going to do it,” Waldman said. “The only reason that they’re running rampant is because no one stands up to them. The minute they know they will be met with equal force they won’t do it and it’s simple as that. Most of these criminals that shoot up these schools they are cowards, they are weak-minded individuals. The minute they see a gun they drop it and run out.”

Thomas C. Zambito covers energy, economic growth and transportation for The USA Today’s Network’s New York State team. He can be reached at Tzambito@Lohud.com or on Twitter at @Tom- Zambito.

Lee Zeldin attacker quickly released from jail — just as Zeldin predicted

Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:26:34 GMT

Lee Zeldin attacker quickly released from jail — just as pol predicted Snejana Farberov 7/22/2022

The man accused of trying to stab Republican candidate for New York governor Lee Zeldin with a bladed weapon during a campaign stop on Thursday was released from jail within hours of his arrest on a felony charge — just as Zeldin had predicted.

David Jakubonis, 43, from Fairport, New York, was arraigned overnight in Perinton Town Court on a count of second-degree attempted assault stemming from the attack on Rep. Zeldin but was quickly released on his own recognizance.

In a tweet after the violent incident in Monroe County, Zeldin, who is running as a tough-on-crime candidate against incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, said he expected his alleged assailant to be back on the streets in no time.

“His words as he tried to stab me a few hours ago were ‘you’re done’, but several attendees, including @EspositoforNY, quickly jumped into action & tackled the guy,” the gubernatorial hopeful tweeted early Friday. “Law enforcement was on the scene within minutes. The attacker will likely be instantly released under NY’s laws.”

David Jakubonis, 43, who was caught on video allegedly attacking Lee Zeldin with a bladed weapon during a campaign event Thursday, was released from jail. WHEC. Jakubonis was quickly subdued.New York GOP Zeldin, a sitting US congressman, had predicted Jakubonis’ swift release from jail on his own recognizance. Twitter/ Lee Zeldin David Jakubonis, 43, from Fairport, New York, was arraigned overnight in Perinton Town Court on a count of second-degree attempted assault stemming from the attack on Rep. Zeldin.WHEC.

Critics on Twitter reacted with a mix of incredulity and dismay at the news of the suspect’s swift release.

“This guy tried to stab a man running for Governor and is back on the streets?!?” Desi Cuellar, a GOP congressional candidate from Queens, tweeted. “New York has truly become a sick place run by criminals!”

Ben Domenech, editor-at-large at The Spectator magazine, wrote: “Attempt to stab a GOP Congressman on stage, get released on your own recognizance. New York, everybody.”

David G. Jakubonis is seen in an image from his Instagram page. Jakubonis was tackled by attendees after attacking Zeldin on stage.WHEC.

Erin Perrine, former President Donald Trump’s spokeswoman, also weighed in: “Really sad to see how much my home state supports criminals more than victims.”

Zeldin, a sitting US congressman from Long Island, was delivering a stump speech about bail reform in Perinton, New York, when he was confronted by Jakubonis.

Jakubonis is seen above being led away in handcuffs. The weapon shaped like a cat’s face is seen in the foreground.The Firing Pin, LLC/Facebook Desi Cuellar, a GOP congressional candidate from Queens, slammed the suspect’s release under New York’s bail reform laws. Twitter/ Desi Cuellar

The 43-year-old man, who is reportedly an Iraq War veteran and was said to be drunk at the time, was seen on video jumping on stage and lunging at the candidate with an unknown weapon shaped like a cat’s face featuring two blades.

“I saw that he [was] approaching the congressman, so I jumped up on the stage,” witness Joe Chenelly told The Post.

After a brief tussle between the suspect and Zeldin, Chenelly, a combat veteran, tackled the aggressor to the ground.

Zeldin, a Republican, is looking to unseat incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul in November.William Farrington

Chenelly told Rochester First that when he later spoke with Jakubonis and found out the suspect had served in Iraq, he promised to get him help.

“When he said he served in Iraq, I got down hands on my knees and said, ‘You know, we’re going to get through whatever you’ve done here tonight. You’re going to get better and focus on that. You can contact me after this thing is done,'” Chenelly, who is running for the state Assembly, told the outlet.

Jakubonis was detained by a number of witnesses including GOP candidate for lieutenant governor Alison Esposito.

Zeldin was unharmed and resumed his speech after Jakubonis was led away by police officers.

Later on Thursday, Zeldin told The Post via text he was “OK” and described the incident as “crazy.”

What do you think? Post a comment.

Hochul, who will be facing off against Zeldin in November, condemned the attack on her opponent.

“My team has informed me about the incident at Lee Zeldin’s campaign event tonight. Relieved to hear that Congressman Zeldin was not injured and that the suspect is in custody,” she said in the tweet. “I condemn this violent behavior in the strongest terms possible — it has no place in New York.”

nypost.com /2022/07/22/lee-zeldins-alleged-attacker-quickly-released-from-jail/

NY Bar leader criticizes revised red flag law (Rochester D&C)

Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:17:13 GMT

NY Bar leader criticizes revised red flag law from the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

ALBANY – Weeks after lawmakers embraced expansions to a law that allows firearms to be seized from persons deemed to be dangerous, the revamped 'red flag' statute is flawed with 'significant deficiencies ' including potential threats to due process rights, according to the New York State Bar Association’s leader.

Sherry Levin Wallach, president of the lawyers’ group, expressed concern that judges are required to make rulings regarding an individual’s mental state in the absence of a requirement for a psychiatric evaluation. She also pointed out the New York Red Flag law forces individuals to represent themselves when they lack funds to hire a lawyer or don’t understand the importance of being represented by an attorney.

'We are all horrified by the tragic and repeated mass shootings across our state and nation, and support policy changes that might prevent the next tragedy from occurring,' Wallach said in an essay published by the USA Today Network. 'But expanding a broken statute like New York’s Red Flag Law without making much-needed improvements is not the answer.'

Wallach’s commentary caught the attention of the National Rifle Association, which in a blog post Monday called her critique 'refreshing'

The N.R.A. says it shares the view that dangerous people should not have access to firearms, but believes the New York statute has fundamental due process protections while creating risks to violations of the rights of innocent people.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and an N.R.A. board member, said he agreed with Wallach’s essay on the state framework for initiating emergency protection orders authorizing law enforcement to seize weapons from an individual.

'It’s what we’ve been saying since Day One,' said King, whose group last month won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which found New York’s restrictions for concealed carry permits infringed on the constitutional rights of applicants for pistol permits.

New York has had a red flag law since 2019. But the issue got renewed attention following the May 14 racist massacre of 10 African Americans at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo. Those killings were allegedly carried out by an 18-year-old Broome County man whose erratic behavior in high school one year earlier drew State Police attention, though he still managed to acquire a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle in the weeks before the massacre at a shop in Endicott.

The new amendments added to the Red Flag law last month require police and prosecutors to file extreme risk petitions when they have credible information that individuals are about to harm themselves or others. If police secure such a judicial order, they can seize guns or prevent the individuals named in the orders from acquiring firearms.

In the nine weeks since the Buffalo massacre, State Police said their investigators have filed 143 Red Flag petitions, representing a significant increase in the pace of those interventions.

Timothy Dymond, president of the union representing State Police detectives, said the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office 'have left us hanging' by not providing legal representation to those investigators when they go to court with the extreme risk removal petitions.

'When they get temporary removal from the judge, they have a hearing scheduled within three days, and our people are going to these hearings without representation,' Dymond sasid. 'We’re oftentimes taking on a skilled defense attorney that represents the respondents. So it’s just a losing formula. The state of New York has attorneys representing its interests in traffic tickets. So the fact they have an investigator without an attorney representing the state’s interests for these cases is just baffling.'

Thomas Mungeer, president of the New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association, said the Red Flag requirements have become 'an unfunded mandate' for already strained State Police. 'We need the resources in order to complete the mission,' Mungeer said.

The package of new gun laws included an expansion of those who may file extreme risk protection order petitions to include health care practitioners who have examined an individual within the last six months.

Hochul’s office, asked about the Bar Association head’s critique of New York’s approach to Red Flag interventions, pointed to remarks Hochul made three weeks ago.

Hochul noted then the state had raised the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles while increasing reliance on the Red Flag laws. 'And I thank the State Police for being so aggressive in their approach in making sure that we protect citizens,' Hochul added.

An ardent supporter of gun owner rights, Assemblyman Robert Smullen, R-Fulton County, said the Red Flag law, in his view, remains flawed, while much of the package of new gun laws has the effect of hindering the ability of law-abiding people to exercise their right to have firearms to protect themselves.

'They decided to pass an onerous law that applies to all legal, law-abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves,' he said. 'On so many levels, it’s unconstitutional.'

Smullen said one solution to a gun debate that is often geographical in nature is to have the S.A.F.E. Act -- the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement legislation of 2013 -- apply only in New York City.

He noted it took police 25 minutes to respond to a home invasion crime at his rural house last December. 'That’s why people in my area own guns,' he said. 'It’s a different scenario than living in Manhattan.'

Why We Can't Have Nice Things: 'Good Samaritan' Who Saved Indiana Mall Goers Is Denounced as No Hero

Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:58:00 GMT

Why We Can't Have Nice Things: 'Good Samaritan' Who Saved Indiana Mall Goers Is Denounced as No Hero By Alex Parker | Jul 18, 2022 AP Photo/Michael Conroy

What makes someone a hero? How about a Good Samaritan? Evidently, such questions are contentious.

And a Sunday incident has some insisting a brave bystander shouldn’t be celebrated.

At the Greenwood Park Mall in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area, a man opened fire. As reported by Deseret News, 20-year-old Johnathan Sapirman got off 24 rifle rounds.

Tragically, three were murdered: Victor Gomez, 30; and couple Rosa Rivera de Pineda, 37, and Pedro Pineda, 56. Two more were injured: a 20-year-old female shot in the leg; and a 12-year minorly wounded by a deflected bullet.

After entering the mall, Sapirman headed straight to the bathroom and was there for over an hour before exiting the bathroom and opening fire.

“The most puzzling piece…was the amount of time that he was in the bathroom,” [Chief James Ison] said. “We believe he was getting ready.”

But the man’s plans were thwarted because more than bad guys carry guns. Elisjsha Dicken, 22, stopped the mass shooter’s spree.

Footage…showed that Dicken shot 10 rounds from his handgun, while motioning for citizens at the mall to exit behind him.

Chief James has praised Elisjsha’s intervention:

“Many more people would have died last night if a responsible, armed citizen hadn’t been present…”

On Sunday evening, the chief compared Elisjsha to a biblical character. He did so again Monday:

“The shooter was confronted by our Good Samaritan. … The Good Samaritan was armed with a pistol and engaged the shooter as he stood outside the restroom area firing into the food court. [Elisjsha] fired several rounds, striking the suspect. The suspect attempted to retreat back into the restroom [but] fell to the ground after being shot.”

Does that sound like a hero to you? It doesn’t to a Bloomington traffic anchor. Murrow Award-winning journalist Justin Kollar was flabbergasted by the chief’s framing. He expressed his dismay in a tweet:

“The term ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man… I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone *killing* someone… my God.”

And he was none too impressed with Elisjsha packing heat.

“It’s against the @simonmalls code of conduct for anyone to carry a weapon inside the mall. However, Greenwood Police are thankful the…man was.”

Some online were in agreement. One user offered, “What you have is two gunmen — one of whom obeyed the law for a little longer than the mass shooter.”

More remarks:

· “[A]sk yourself if you really want your mall experience to be like the wild…west.”

· “Why did he bring a gun shopping, in a specified gun-free zone? Hmm, not so good by definition. What if he was there to shoot people?”

· “I am horrified to see that term used in this context.”

So goes America’s divide over guns. For many advocates, if a firearm is used to do evil, it’s apparently the fault of the weapon. But if a gun is used to stop the act, that implement earns no points. Nor does the person who rightfully employed it.

Presently, a perpetrator may be more embraced than their victim (Language Warning):

As for the issue of a Good Samaritan, the biblical act was extolled because it saved a life.

Did Elisjsha do the same, many times over? You be the judge:

· The shooter was armed with a Sig Sauer 400M .556-caliber rifle.

· He had a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .556 on reserve in the restroom.

· A Glock 33 .357 pistol was on his person.

· He was armed with over 100 rounds.

· He’d been frequently practicing at a range for the past two years.

· He had resigned from his warehouse job in May.

· Police were told by family they believe he’d received a notice of eviction.

That sounds like a man who came to kill the world.

Thanks to Elisjsha Dicken — no matter what he’s called — that mission was swiftly and permanently scrapped.

-ALEX

Hochul’s New Gun Law Has Impact On Houses of Worship

Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:34:45 GMT

Hochul’s New Gun Law Has Impact On Houses of Worship

On July 1, 2022, the state of New York enacted a new gun control law. The July 2022 Gun Control Law was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, which held that New York’s “concealed carry” law violated the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the law was passed on the same day it was introduced, allowing no meaningful opportunity for public input.

The July 2022 Gun Control Law contains provisions that relate to churches and other houses of worship. Specifically, the law lists several “sensitive locations” where New Yorkers will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons; thosesensitive locations include “any place of worship or religious observation,” schools, “nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps.” Under the July 2022 Gun Control Law, only certain classes of individuals (including, for example, law enforcement officers, active-duty military personnel, and persons acting as licensed and employed security guards) will be allowed to carry firearms at sensitive locations; anyone else carrying a firearm at a sensitive location shall be guilty of a felony. In essence, the state has made it unlawful for houses of worship to have armed congregants serve as members of their security teams unless those congregants are active or retired law enforcement officers. Churches would be permitted to hire professional security, but that could prove cost prohibitive for many houses of worship.

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms opposes the July 2022 Gun Control Law. Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not congregants should be allowed to carry in church. Instead, state government has taken that decision out of their hands.

Statement Concerning New York’s new Firearms Licensing Laws

Thu, 07 Jul 2022 01:02:14 GMT

Statement Concerning New York’s new Firearms Licensing Laws

July 6, 2022 — Once again the New York State Legislature has seen fit to pass sweeping new criminal justice laws that affect the rights of millions of New York citizens, and which impose burdensome new duties on local government officials, without any consultation with the people who will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of those new laws. This has become a habit with the Legislature and has resulted in other criminal justice disasters such as New York’s so-called Bail Reform Law.

Some action by the Legislature was necessary to fill the firearms licensing vacuum created when the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional restrictions on our citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. But it did not need to be thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement.

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon. A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators — and the public — must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote. The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months. Consequently, law enforcement agencies and the courts, which bear most of the responsibility for implementing the new licensing laws, were deprived of any opportunity to point out to Legislators the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions. And, of course, our citizens, whose rights are once again being circumscribed, probably again in unconstitutional ways, had no opportunity to communicate their concerns to their legislative representatives.

We want to be clear: The Sheriffs of New York do strongly support reasonable licensing laws that aim to assure that firearms do not get into the wrong hands. We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights. If we had been consulted before passage of these laws, we could have helped the Legislators discern the difference between those two things, and the result would have been better, more workable licensing provisions that respect the rights of our law-abiding citizens and punish the lawbreakers.

'Briefly' . . . The Recent SCOTUS Decision Explained

Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:40:52 GMT

'Briefly' . . . The Recent SCOTUS Decision Explained Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 29, 2022 by Dean Weingarten

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Rights Outside of the Home, Let’s Break It Down

The opinion by Justice Thomas is relatively simple. The Constitution must be interpreted as what it meant to the people who ratified it in 1791.

It is so ordered!

The dissent starts on page 84. The dissent by Breyer Starts with a false use of the English language:
This opinion should go far in restoring Second Amendment rights. However, Progressive judges are persistent and inventive in finding ways to justify the positions they wish to take.

The Supreme Court opinion on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was released on June 22, 2022. It is a 6 to 3 opinion, which upholds the Second Amendment as applying outside the home and rebukes Circuit Courts for creating an unnecessarily complicated two step process in applying Second Amendment protection to statutes. The opinion is 135 pages long.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, and Justice Barrett in concurring opinions. Justice Alito and Barrett concur in full. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts simply concur.

Looking at history can aid in the understanding, but what was meant at the time of ratification is key. In addition, the Second Amendment became applicable to state governments with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, so what was meant by the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of ratification is also important.

Justice Thomas cites Caetano v. Massachusetts as one way the Court has adopted the Second Amendment to modern realities.

Thomas clarifies all parties agree the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The respondents, who try to defend the New York “may issue” law, attempt to render the Second Amendment meaningless, by giving state authorities the power to decide who the Second Amendment applies, on a case-by-case basis.

Quotes from the opinion show Thomas correctly points out Second Amendment rights apply to ordinary, law-abiding adults. From Page 3 :

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects.

and

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

On page 4, Thomas explains the requirement for states to show their law is Constitutional.

The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

This is important because it sets the standard for states which are attempting to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. They have the burden of showing a widespread historical precedent for their proposed law. The precedent has to be greater than what existed for the Sullivan law.

On page 11 Thomas mentions, specifically, six states which fail the test. According to the decision, six states require some special need beyond that of ordinary citizens for self defense. Those states are:

California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. The District of Columbia is mentioned, with the caveat the law there has been enjoined by the lower court for several years. The laws in those states, by being mentioned, appear to this correspondent, to have been effectively struck down.

On page 14, Justice Thomas goes on to strike down the ridiculously complicated “two-step” framework which has become common to interpret the Second Amendment in several Circuit courts.

In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

On page 59, Justice Thomas recounts of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, to protect the freed slaves and to ensure their right to arms.

On page 64, Thomas states late 19th-century regulation should bear little weight compared to earlier evidence.

As we suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.

On page 66, Justice Thomas dismisses the Kansas court understanding of the Second Amendment in 1901 as clearly erroneous:

For example, the Kansas Supreme Court uphelda complete ban on public carry enacted by the city of Salinain 1901 based on the rationale that the Second Amendment protects only “the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.” Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 232, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905). That was clearly erroneous.

On page 68, Justice Thomas explains the limitations on the carry of arms are few and not broadly applied.

Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.

Continuing on page 69, Justice Thomas explains the Second Amendment is due all the same respect as the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not a Second Class Constitutional Right. It deserves the same respect as the First Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment. The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

Finally, Justice Thomas strikes down the New York law as unconstitutional.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justice Alito writes a concurring opinion, starting on page 75.

I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

On page 77, he explains the thrust of the dissent. His explanation is similar to what this writer has written, many times

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dis-sent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not re-arguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

On page 79, Kavanaugh joins with Roberts in concurring. They do not say they concur “in full”. They list the many ways the Second Amendment may still be regulated. It is disappointing, but their concurrence does not carry as much weight as does Thomas’ opinion.

On page 83, Barret concurs in full, and warns against using Reconstruction Era history in interpreting the Second Amendment. She notes the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.”

The basis for nearly all “gun control” legislation is the transference of motive and volition from people to an inanimate object. The correct English usage is: Americans were killed with firearms, not by firearms.

Justice Breyer goes on to claim the Constitution does not place certain things outside of government power to do. He complains about the majority opinion thus, on Page 85:

It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests maybe. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.

Justice Breyer is mistaken. One of the clear purposes of the Constitution is to place certain things outside of government power. A core philosophical building block of Progressive thought is limits on governmental power are bad. This is not the philosophy the Constitution was based upon.

Breyer simply contends the majorities interpretation of historical law is wrong. He supplies the minorities’ interpretation.

It is difficult to see how even the Ninth Circuit can uphold the Hawaii licensing scheme in Young v. Hawaii, or the bans on magazines over 10 rounds or bans on so-called “assault weapons” in California, when those items have already been ruled to be covered by the Second Amendment.

This opinion does not end the fight for restoring Second Amendment rights. It moves us along the path toward full restoration.

Full text of the Supreme Court's decision on the NYSRPA vs Bruen case (Pdf)

Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:26:53 GMT

Full text of the Supreme Court's decision on the NYSRPA vs Bruen case (Pdf)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, making it easier for Americans to carry handguns (USA Today)

Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:12:20 GMT

Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, making it easier for Americans to carry handguns John Fritze, USA TODAY

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the New York law "prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms."

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated a New York law that requires state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun, a decision that could make it easier for millions of Americans to arm themselves in public as the nation is reeling from a string of mass shootings.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

The case was among the most closely watched this term on a docket full of culture war issues such as abortion, religious freedom and climate change. The decision had the potential to shift the landscape on Second Amendment rights at a time when Americans remain divided over access to guns.

"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms," Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by five other conservative justices.

The decision landed weeks after an 18-year-old gunman, armed with an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, fatally shot 19 children and two teachers at a school in Texas. Another 18-year-old has been charged in the May 14 killing of 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Four others were killed June 1 in a shooting at an Oklahoma medical facility.

The shootings prompted a response from the other two branches of government. A bipartisan group of senators this week revealed the text of a sweeping gun reform package that, if passed, could end decades of partisan gridlock and inaction on the issue.

In a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal justices, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer started by writing that 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020 and that gun violence has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.

"Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds," Breyer wrote. "The court today severely burdens states’ efforts to do so."

More than a decade ago, the high court ruled that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess guns in their homes settling a debate over whether the Constitution guaranteed that right only for individuals or militias. But the court left unanswered whether the same right exists beyond a home's front door.

At issue is a New York law that requires residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun – in other words, a need for a permit greater than the general public. Two upstate New York residents, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, sued when a county licensing official denied them the carry privileges they sought.

The court's decision was celebrated by gun rights groups.

"Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home."

Gun control groups, on the other hand, asserted it would increase violence.

"Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. "Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country."

During the course of a two-hour oral argument in November, it seemed clear a majority favored striking down New York's law. The real question in the case is the scope of the court's ruling and how many similar gun regulations it will affect across the nation.

At least six other Democratic-led states – including California, Maryland and New Jersey – have licensing regimes similar to New York's. Together, those states represent about a quarter of the nation's population.

The justices wrestled with the limits on the right to carry a gun in public, and whether those limits should be more pronounced in densely populated places, such as New York City. They peppered the plaintiffs with hypotheticals about whether New York could ban handguns on the New York City subway or in Yankee Stadium. What about on college campuses or at bars?

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that other states, including those with large cities, have more permissive gun regulations without major consequences. But the court's liberal justices pushed back on that assertion, arguing that the city of Chicago is case in point for how more guns can lead to spiraling crime rates.

"I mean, most people think that Chicago is, like, the world's worst city with respect to gun violence," Associate Justice Elena Kagan said at the time. "Chicago doesn't think that, but everybody else thinks it about Chicago."

Much was made of the court's decision last year to hear the case, in part because the justices had turned away other Second Amendment appeals for years and also because they seemed to pump the brakes on culture war issues more generally. Since then, the 6-3 conservative court has agreed to revisit abortion, affirmative action policies in college admissions and the extent to which states may consider race when they draw political boundaries, such as congressional districts.

Argument:Supreme Court skeptical of law that limits carrying handguns in public

History:A 700-year-old law may inform Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision

President Joe Biden's administration, which supported New York in the suit, said at least six other states have similar laws. A federal district court in New York dismissed the challenge to the New York permitting scheme in 2018, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision.

An easy refresher on the Constitution and 2nd Amendment (YouTube video)

Tue, 21 Jun 2022 22:47:00 GMT

An easy refresher on the Constitution and 2^nd Amendment

5 minutes and 18 seconds video.

Gun Control for Dummies - It's Common Sense - YouTube

Here is a list of gun control bills which were passed in New York State during the 2022 legislative session.

Sun, 05 Jun 2022 17:11:00 GMT

Here is a list of gun control bills which were passed in New York State during the 2022 legislative session:

List of gun control bills which passed in 2022.

A-1023A/S-4970A, Requires the creation and imposition of restrictive commercial practices and stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun and ammunition sales to individuals with a criminal record.
A-3998/S-687, Clarifies the definition of imitation weapon.
A-7926A/S-4116A, Requires semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition.
A-8102A/S-6363A, Requires the court to order the search for and immediate seizure of certain firearms when a defendant willfully refuses to surrender such firearms.
A-8735/S-7760, Requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to publish quarterly reports providing information related to firearms, rifles and shotguns used in the commission of crimes in the state of New York.
A-8736/S-7796, Amends the definition of a “disguised gun” to include any firearms designed and intended to appear to be a toy gun.
A-8741/S-7736, Amends the “Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act” relating to unserialized frames or receivers.
A-8786/S-7705, Criminalizes the sale of ghost guns; requires any person licensed as a gunsmith or a dealer in firearms to register with the Division of Criminal Justice Services any unserialized firearm, rifle or shotgun, finished frame or receiver, or unfinished frame or receiver.
A-8846/S-7716, Relates to the Firearm Violence Research Institute; makes technical changes to the institute’s procedures, goals and activities.
A-10428A/S-9229A, Relates to the definition of large capacity ammunition feeding device for purposes of the offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; and repeals section 265.36 of the penal law.
A-10497/S-9407B, Relates to the unlawful purchase and the unlawful sale or delivery of a body vest.
A-10502/S-9113A, Authorizes certain health care providers to file an application for an Extreme Risk Protection Order against a person examined by such health care provider in certain circumstances.
A-10503/S-9458, Relates to the purchase or taking possession of a semiautomatic rifle; requires a license to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle; establishes the crimes of criminal purchase of a semiautomatic rifle and criminal sale of a semiautomatic rifle; requires recertification of licenses to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle every five years.
A-10504/S-9456, Relates to defining firearm; provides that the term firearm shall also include any other weapon that is not otherwise defined containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of explosive

How The Buffalo Mass Shooter Got Exactly What He Wanted

Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:11 GMT

How The Buffalo Mass Shooter Got Exactly What He Wanted by Colion Noir

Right now, America is being trolled by an 18 year old psychopath and he has a front row seat to the show.

Everything this guy did was designed to get media attention and drive the biggest divide possible by placating to every talking point the anti-gun far left has.

He left an 180 page manifesto, that’s a book.

He even wrote it in question and answer form like he was being interviewed and he made it a point to answer every question you’d think to ask someone who just slaughtered people in cold blood and hit every single possible racist talking point, and then says all his radicalization happened online during COVID.

He explains why he chose the weapons he used using every single anti-gun buzz word used by the anti-gun lobby. Hell it sounded like they wrote it for him.

Then he literally scribbles every racist word or phrase he could think of on the guns he used and then to top it all off, this walking human fart of a lunatic live streamed the entire massacre.

He packaged together an online mass shooting starter kit, gave it to the media and said make me famous and make me some more mass shooters and the media said “Ok”.

On May 13, 2022 nobody knew who the hell this kid was, but by May 14th, he was the most famous person in the world and by May 15th, we knew every thought and desire he had because they were combing through his 180 page written self interview like it was some long lost text from the communist manifesto.

He created a snuff film and it got passed around like it was the the missing Ray J and Kim Kardashian sex tape.

It’s not like the footage was caught on surveillance cameras, he live streamed it.

Now I can’t go on the internet without seeing videos of him in court, articles about what we know about the shooter, who was his mama, and what did he eat that day.

Then to make themselves feel better about sensationalizing a clout chasing psychopath, the media sprinkles a couple videos about the people who were actually killed.

We gave him exactly what he wanted, the same thing I’ve been saying for 9 years now:

He wanted to solidify himself as the architect of how to become more famous than ever by committing mass shootings and it worked!

This guy was nothing more than a copycat.

His 180 page manifesto was mostly plagiarized from another mass shooters manifesto and video of a mass shooting that he only knew about because, of course, the media sensationalized and made that guy famous.

He literally says that the previous shooters live stream is what started everything you see here https://www.jpost.com/international/article-706733.

He wanted infamy he just used his new found racism to justify his actions. This was about him and making himself famous.

He saw a playbook and copied it. Nothing he did was original, nothing he said, was original.

He simply wanted to amass the highest body count, using the most infamous gun so that the media would talk about it, making him infamous for eternity because now anytime there’s a mass shooting his name will come up and he decided not to kill himself because he realized it would be better to live to see and experience the fame instead of dying.

Now he’ll end up in prison and be taken in and protected by the other racist gangs in prison who hate black people and praise him for what he did.

Congratulations to Americas Mainstream you did it again.

You made another sociopathic low life famous for killing a bunch of people and inspired future shooters in the process.

Especially now considering we are living at the height of clout chasing, where people eat laundry detergent for views.

This is no different, except the clout chaser is an evil psychopath who was chasing clout with a gun in his hands.

I promise you, if he thought no one would talk about him, mention his name or watch his disgusting little live snuff stream, he wouldn’t have done this because his motivation was attention and we just gave it to him in spades and then wonder why we keep having these copy cat mass shootings.

And of course, right on cue here comes the anti-gun lobby and their anti-gun politician exploiting this shooting to push gun control.

Here’s the irony the shooter said he chose to: “carry it out in New York due to its strict open carry gun laws, which would make it harder for someone to stop him.” https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooter-saw-new-yorks-gun-laws-his-advantage-1706982.

And the irony gets even worse, right now there is a case in the supreme court named New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen where the supreme court is deciding if New York’s denial of applications for concealed carry licenses for self defense violates the second amendment.

Anyone want to take a guess how the mayor of New York feels about a potential ruling that would make it easier for New York citizens to carry guns for their safety?

Especially after a mass shooter just shot up a grocery store in New York because he knew the likely hood of someone carrying a gun was low and if someone was, they’d likely be limited in their capacity to deal with him because of New York’s gun-laws.

And I quote: “We Should Be Very Afraid, ” Mayor Eric Adams Said. In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us. https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-new-york-guns-concealed-carry/11857751/

This is not rocket science, shooters like these are cowards looking for easy targets.

That’s why he didn’t run down the block trying to shoot street dudes in that area, he knows the street dudes in the hood don’t care about New York’s gun laws, they all have guns with as many rounds as they want and they wouldn’t call the police.

They’d leave him out there in the street to rot and instead of watching a livestream of a coward shooting unarmed innocent people, we’d be watching the livestream death of loser.

Body armor and an AR-15 doesn’t make you immortal.

When you have other people shooting back at you, it changes everything, you go from “I’m to kill everyone in this place” to “oh shit I’m being shot at” and that shifts the focus away from killing unarmed innocent people to the people shooting at you giving the unarmed people time to escape.

That security guard may have lost his life, but because the shooter had to deal with the security guard shooting at him in the first place, there’s no telling how many lives he saved just by having a gun.

Long story short, gun control create victims not safety.

These 10 Incidents Highlight Importance of Second Amendment for Women

Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:31:25 GMT

These 10 Incidents Highlight Importance of Second Amendment for Women by Abby Kassal

Key Takeaways:

1. Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.

2. To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.

3. No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.

To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.

No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

Spring 2022 Member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation

Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.

To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.

No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

Since 1987, the United States has recognized March as Women’s History Month to celebrate the vital role of women in American history. Unfortunately, far too often we find that the armed women of history are overlooked or completely forgotten, and the vital role of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women is ignored.

Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property—from Harriet Tubman, the famed “conductor” of the underground railroad who was known to carry loaded pistols, to Mary “Stagecoach Mary” Fields, the first black woman to be a mail carrier, who notoriously kept a .38 revolver in her apron to fend off bandits and wild animals alike.

Tubman and Fields haven’t been alone.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women, either because they were armed or because another armed person came to their defense.

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in March. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

March 1, Atlanta: Five teens—at least two armed—tried to carjack a woman as she sat in her vehicle, police said. The woman drew her own gun and exchanged fire with the would-be carjackers, who fled. Although she was injured, her car was not stolen. Police said they arrested the teens just hours later, after a police chase in which they crashed a car stolen during a second carjacking.

March 4, Longview, Texas: A woman armed with a rifle shot and wounded a man who forced his way inside her home, police said. The woman had told the man—who neighbors say had a history of criminally trespassing in area homes—to get off her porch. But he refused and tried to smash in her sliding glass door with his fist, according to police, who arrested the wounded man. The county sheriff praised the woman’s actions as “an excellent example of the importance of our Second Amendment.”

March 5, Lincolnton, North Carolina: Police said a woman’s estranged husband showed up at the residence where she was staying, forced his way inside, and threatened her and the male homeowner. During the altercation, the homeowner retrieved a firearm from a bedroom and shot the intruder in self-defense before running to a neighbor’s home to call 911. Police charged the wounded husband with multiple crimes.

March 9, Nashville, Tennessee: After her boyfriend physically assaulted her earlier in the day, a woman returned to their shared home to gather her belongings and retrieve her three young children, police said. A female friend accompanied her for support. When they arrived, the boyfriend argued with the woman, then assaulted her again. She saw that he was armed, so she drew her own gun and exchanged fire with him in self-defense. The woman, her friend, and the boyfriend were all injured, but the three children weren’t harmed, police said. The boyfriend faces several felony charges, including being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm.

March 10, Dayton, Ohio: A woman’s ex-boyfriend ignored a protective order against him, scaled the roof of her home in the middle of the night, and tried to climb through her bedroom window, police said. When the woman heard the intruder, she grabbed a firearm to protect herself and her daughter and shot the man in the arm as he descended into her bedroom. She told police she realized it was her ex-boyfriend as he ran from the house. He was arrested later that day after calling paramedics for his gunshot wound, and faces several criminal charges.

March 16, Reading, Pennsylvania: A woman and her boyfriend were about to get into their car at a local park when a man approached them and fired two rounds, police said. The woman drew her own gun and shot back, giving her wounded boyfriend time to take cover behind their car. Police later arrested their assailant and charged him with attempted homicide and unlawfully possessing a gun as a felon.

March 22, Orlando, Florida: A female veteran working as an Uber driver arrived at a customer’s pick-up location and saw him physically assaulting his girlfriend, police said. The driver decided to give them a ride despite the man’s violent actions because she didn’t want to leave the girlfriend alone with her assailant. When the couple got into the car, the man passed out drunk in the back seat while the Uber driver spoke with the girlfriend. When the man woke up and assaulted both his girlfriend and the driver, police said, the driver stopped the car and demanded that he get out. The driver shot and wounded the man after he shoved his girlfriend to the ground and advanced on the driver in a threatening manner.

March 23, Paradise, Nevada: A woman was with her boyfriend and three children when an ex-boyfriend broke into their home, police said. The woman armed herself and called 911, and the ex-boyfriend left. However, he returned a short time later armed with his own gun, which he pointed at the current boyfriend’s head. The woman fired one shot, striking him in the head and killing him, police said. No one else was harmed.

March 24, Lansing, Michigan: When a man with two prior convictions for domestic violence began assaulting a woman inside her home, police said, her son came to her defense, shooting and wounding her attacker. Police arrested him at a nearby hospital. The woman was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.

March 25, Montgomery, Alabama: When a woman called police after being assaulted by her husband, officers advised her to pursue a protective order against him. The woman was on her way to the police station with her two adult sons when the husband rammed his car into hers, drove them off the road, and approached them while brandishing a handgun. One son, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, told his brother and mother to run when his father opened fire. Despite being shot five times, the son was able to draw his own gun and fatally shoot his father before anyone else was harmed. He was hospitalized in critical condition, but expected to survive.

Some gun control advocates like to claim that the Second Amendment was written by and for men, and that it leaves women to suffer as victims of gun violence.

But these claims ignore the countless cases such as the ones above, where the right to keep and bear arms was used by women or for the sake of protecting women—often from male aggressors against whom an unarmed woman would have been effectively helpless.

Women’s History Month may be over, but the importance of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women continues every day of the year.

No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Gun Control or 2nd Amendment?

Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:42:37 GMT

By Dave Workman of Guns Magazine By tradition, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) holds its most controversial rulings until the final days of the session, which wraps up later this month, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen will not be the last battle.

Certainly, an affirmative ruling — meaning a decision by the court to nullify the long-standing “good cause” requirement for carry permits in New York State — would be shattering not only for anti-gun-rights Empire State bureaucrats, but for similarly empowered people in states with similar requirements. We’re talking about New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, Delaware (Joe Biden’s home state), Connecticut and Massachusetts. A favorable outcome would strengthen the Second Amendment, but it won’t be the last word.

If the high court strikes down the New York requirement, as many anticipate at this writing, the other states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. Demagoguery dies hard and bureaucrats hate to give up any power they have over the public, especially involving the exercise of the right to bear arms, as well as keep them.

What’s at stake here is not just the rights of people involved in the lawsuit, but the generations of citizens whose rights have been violated by these laws and who never had the chance for relief. Nobody has ever talked about this because it’s an inconvenient truth. If the law is found unconstitutional, it has always been so. We can’t retroactively hold all of those people accountable who enforced the laws in decades past but we can put candidates and incumbents on the spot to make sure we vote against anybody who thinks the right needs to be restricted.

Experience following the high court ruling against Chicago’s handgun ban in June 2010 suggests New York officials will scramble to figure out just how far they can push the envelope with revised restrictions, and still comply.

An affirmative Second Amendment ruling — if that’s what the court delivers — will come right in the middle of campaign season leading up to the 2022 midterm elections. You’ve got only a few months to mobilize, get behind candidates who will flip power in Congress and in state legislatures around the country. This year provides an opportunity to stage a peaceful revolution by putting anti-gun politicians out of work, allowing pro-rights officials to right the wrongs of the past 18 months and maybe decades in those states with restrictive gun laws.

Biden’s New ATF Nominee: Worse than David Chipman!

Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:28:17 GMT

Biden’s New ATF Nominee: Worse than David Chipman! by Don Smith

Last year, gun owners across America stood up and rejected David Chipman’s nomination to run the scandal-ridden ATF. Now, we’re going to have to do it again.

According to several sources, Biden’s handlers are about to nominate Steve Dettelbach as the new director of the ATF. And if you thought that Chipman was the worst nominee possible, I’ve got bad news for you: Steve Dettelbach is even worse!

There is no time to waste, as Biden’s team is trying to rally support for Dettelbach behind closed doors as we speak. Please call our NY senators and express your strong opposition against this left-wing activist immediately!
Chairman Wayne County SCOPE

1.Contact Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D)

DC Phone Number: 202-224-6542 (you will need to leave a message)

Contact: https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck

2.Contact Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

DC Phone Number: 202-224-4451 (you may need to leave a message)

Contact: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/email-me

Dettelbach was a former candidate for Ohio Attorney General (and a former United State Attorney during the Obama Administration). Dettelbach has made gun control a core part of his public image and is on the record in support of:

>>> A total ban on the sale of AR-15s and hundreds of similar firearms, along with the magazines that we need to run them. To be clear, Dettelbach supports bringing felony charges against law abiding Americans who buy these rifles!

>>> Establishing a national registry of every firearm and every gun owner under the guise of ‘Universal Background Checks.’ The left wants this data to lay the groundwork for eventual gun confiscation!

>>> Putting gun owners with a variety of misdemeanor convictions on the ‘prohibited persons’ NICS list. Once we go down this road and put non-felons into NICS, millions of gun owners will be disarmed!

Dettelbach also supports seizing guns from people who are seeking help for mental health difficulties, but who have never been adjudicated as defective. This sounds like the ‘unsafe’ act.

Dettelbach’s commitment to the left’s gun control agenda is why Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety backed him when he ran for Attorney General in Ohio in 2018 -- and why he received the personal endorsement of Barack Obama and Joe Biden!

Last Last year, gun owners across America stood up and rejected David Chipman’s nomination to run the scandal-ridden ATF. Now, we’re going to have to do it again.

Don Smith, Chairman Wayne County SCOPE
don6027@gmail.com

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Zeldin, Hochul Secure Spots On Primary Ballot: The 2022 campaign for governor of New York is underway.

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:43:38 GMT

Zeldin, Hochul Secure Spots On Primary Ballot: The 2022 campaign for governor of New York is underway. 03/19/2022 / Albany Update

Gov. Kathy Hochul is the Democratic Party’s designated candidate for governor this year. The Party selected Gov. Hochul at the New York State Democratic Convention on February 17, 2022, when the Governor amassed 85.6% of the weighted vote. U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY3) and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams are also seeking the Democratic nomination, with Rep. Suozzi running as a moderate problem-solver and Public Advocate Williams running as a progressive with the support of the Working Families Party. Because Rep. Suozzi and Public Advocate Williams did not receive enough votes at the Democratic Convention to get onto the primary ballot, each candidate will try to gain ballot access by obtaining the signatures of 15,000 Democratic voters. As of mid-January, Gov. Hochul had amassed a record-setting $21.6 million in campaign donations.

On March 16, 2022, CNBC reported that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo is also considering running for governor this year. Cuomo began this year with $16 million in his campaign account and has spent $2 million on advertisements in an effort to regain public support. Earlier this month, a poll showed Cuomo trailing Hochul by a narrow 37%-33% margin amongst Democratic voters, with Rep. Suozzi receiving 7% support and Public Advocate Williams receiving 4%. However, the same poll showed that 59% of all New York voters believe that the results of Attorney General Letitia James’s investigation into Cuomo were accurate; in addition, 63% of all New York voters do not believe Cuomo should hold public office again. Recently, when asked whether he would consider creating his own political party line to facilitate a gubernatorial campaign, Cuomo replied: “‘I’ve done it before. My father’s done it before.’”

On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY1) received the Party’s support for governor on March 1, 2022 at the New York Republican Convention. Eighty-five percent of convention delegates voted for Rep. Zeldin. Former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino and businessman Harry Wilson each received the support of 7% of delegates, while former White House staffer Andrew Giuliani received the support of less than 1%. Astorino, Giuliani, and Wilson each must gather 15,000 signatures to gain ballot access. As of January 2022, Rep. Zeldin had raised $8.4 million in campaign contributions. On March 14, 2022, Rep. Zeldin’s campaign released the results of a poll showing him leading Gov. Hochul, 45.5%-44%; a poll taken earlier in March showed Gov. Hochul leading Rep. Zeldin, 50%-35%.

If necessary, primary elections for governor will be held on June 28, 2022. In anticipation of those potential primaries, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms has begun hosting candidate spotlights with candidates who have secured a place on a major party ballot. At our March 15, 2022 Digital Day of Action, NYCF welcomed Rep. Lee Zeldin for an interview; video of that interview is available here. We hope that Gov. Hochul and other potential candidates will also join us for interviews as the campaign continues.

Senator Zeldin "My America" Speech at a Rally in Albany in Support of the Second Amendment

Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:48:02 GMT

Senator Zeldin "My America" Speech at a Rally in Albany in Support of the Second Amendment (2013)

S7736 has been delivered to Governor Kathy Hochul.

Thu, 24 Feb 2022 23:34:20 GMT

S7736 has been delivered to Governor Kathy Hochul.

Senate Bill S7736

Amends the "Scott J. Beigel unfinished receiver act" relating to unserialized frames or receivers

Sponsor:

KAPLAN

Recent Actions:

Feb 7, 2022 - PASSED ASSEMBLY
Feb 7, 2022 - RETURNED TO SENATE
Feb 24, 2022 - DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR

Review S7736 on NYSenate.gov

What this Means:

The Governor has 10 days (not including Sundays) to approve (“sign”) or reject (“veto”) bills passed by both houses. Signed bills become law; vetoed bills do not. However, if the governor failure to sign or veto a bill within the 10-day period, the bill automatically becomes law.

If a bill is delivered to the Governor when the Legislature is out of session (typically from late June until early January), the rules are a bit different. At such times, the Governor has 30 days (including Sundays) in which to make a decision. Failure to act has the same effect as a veto. Informally, this failure to act is often referred to as a “pocket veto.”

What Happens Next:

The committee may amend the bill to satisfy concerns of committee members, leave it as is, or refer it to another committee for further deliberation. The bill may be reported to the full Senate chamber for consideration if a majority share of the committee members support it. If a bill has not been addressed by the committee by the end of the two-year legislative term, the bill is said to have 'died in committee'.

What Can I Do?

You can reach out to Governor Kathy Hochul's office at the following link: https://www.governor.ny.gov/content/governor-contact-form. Additionally, all members of the Senate welcome legislative feedback from constituents at nysenate.gov. When you use the New York State Senate website to officially support or oppose this bill, your feedback will be shared directly with your senator.

Why am I receiving this?

On Monday January 10th, 2022, you subscribed to alerts for S7736 (a bill introduced originally in the 2021 session). S7736 is the current, active version of this bill.

If you no longer wish to receive updates on this bill, unsubscribe here. Visit the subscription management page to inspect other alert subscriptions you might have.

Taking action with NYSenate.gov

We encourage you to use the tools available on NYSenate.gov to let your voice be heard. Here are a few features that might be especially helpful.

Support or oppose bills

You can let your senator know where you stand by visiting any bill page and clicking “aye” or “nay”. You can also "follow" the bill, which allows you to track it as it moves through the senate, assembly, and the governor's office. You will automatically receive email alerts (such as this one) when there is significant legislative activity related to bills that you support or oppose.

Bill Alerts

You can subscribe to receive email alerts when important events occur in the life cycle of a bill that you are interested. You can subscribe to receive updates on any bill, and you have the option of auto-subscribing when you support or oppose bills. You will continue to receive alerts on a bill in the event it is reintroduced under a different print number in a subsequent legislative term.

Find and follow issues

When a senator posts content — whether it be a bill, resolution, an article, or a press release — they often tag it with the issue being addressed. On NYSenate.gov, you can “follow” the issues you care about. To find them, check out the issue explorer. When you follow an issue, relevant content will appear on your dashboard.

Share additional thoughts on bills

Whenever you support, oppose and/or follow a bill, you can include a message to your senator letting them know why you feel one way or another.

Stay informed with your personal dashboard

Check your dashboard from time to time, where you can learn about action on bills you’ve supported, opposed, or followed. You can also review a list of all the petitions you’ve signed.

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE?

Visit the Citizen's Guide to NYSenate.gov

Citizen's Guide

About the
New York State Senate

Citizen's guide
to NYSenate.gov

Follow @NYSenate
on Twitter

The New York State Senate
NY State Capitol Building, State St., Albany, NY 11210

Manage Alerts | Unsubscribe from Alerts for S7736

A Look At Legislative Redistricting by Jason J. Maguire, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

Wed, 09 Feb 2022 20:07:03 GMT

A Look At Legislative Redistricting by Jason J. McGuire, Executive Director, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

https://www.albanyupdate.com/a-look-at-legislative-redistricting/

Above is a link to a helpful article on the web from Jason Maguire at New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms with information about the recent redistricting of voting districts throughout the state. Note the three links for online maps for the congressional districts, the Senate districts, and the Assembly districts (those links are reproduced here for your convenience):

NYS Senate: https://latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2022_senate

NYS Assembly: https://latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2022_assembly

U.S. Congress: https://latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2022_congress

Elise Stefanik: Don’t Blame the 2nd Amendment for Biden’s Crime Crisis

Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:40:45 GMT

Elise Stefanik: Don’t Blame the 2nd Amendment for Biden’s Crime Crisis

State police clarify pistol permit recertification dates.

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 01:11:05 GMT

State police clarify pistol permit recertification dates by Brandon Jan 12, 2022

Incorrect information was being reported regarding permit recertification. The information was saying that all pistol permit recertification in the state would be due by January 15, 2022.

State police want to clarify that an individual's recertification due date is dependent on their initial recertification date, and must recertify every five years.

An example of this would be if a pistol permit holder who recertified on January 15, 2017, would be due to recertify by January 15, 2022.

A pistol permit holder who recertified on March 8, 2017, would be due to recertify by March 8, 2022.

New York State pistol permits issued prior to January 31, 2013, were first due to be recertified with the New York State Police by January 31, 2018.

The pistol permit recertification website was first opened to allow recertification on January 1, 2017. This date range created a 13-month window to allow New York pistol permit holders enough time to submit their first recertification.

The due dates for the second round of pre-2013 issued pistol permits will range between January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023

Permits issued after January 31, 2013, were due to recertify five years after the permit issue date, and every five years thereafter.

To see when your current recertification expires, visit the New York State Police website by clicking here.

Assembly Bill A449: Establishes a waiting period before a firearm, shotgun or rifle may be delivered to a person

Wed, 05 Jan 2022 14:56:18 GMT

Assembly Bill A449
2021-2022 Legislative Session
Establishes a waiting period before a firearm, shotgun or rifle may be delivered to a person

(See the full text of the bill.)

Update on the Misleading 'Murderer You Know' Lie, Latest Data

Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:50:09 GMT

Update on the Misleading Murderer You Know Lie, Latest Data Ammoland Inc. Posted on December 6, 2021 by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Those who follow the debate on restoring Second Amendment rights have probably heard the other side proclaim some variant of:

“Most victims are murdered by people they know.”

The implication is defending yourself from a murderer is futile, because there is no point in trying to defend yourself from a person who is close to you.

This is a way of lying with statistics. The truth is far different.

Few Victims Are Murdered By Someone They Live With.

In 2013, this correspondent published an essay on the Misleading Murderer that you Know. The numbers were from 2010. This update uses the latest numbers. They are from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2019.

The most accurate crime statistics involve homicides, particularly murders. The most easily solved homicides are murders of passion between intimates. The hardest homicides to solve are those where there is no connection between the murderer and the victim.

The largest category of victims in the FBI reports of victim relationships to their murderer is unknown. In 2019, those victims are 49% of the total. It is a huge number. Some of this is because FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) are often filed before an investigation is complete. As murders of passion among intimates are the easiest to solve, this means a much higher percentage of strangers and acquaintances fall into the unknown category when the UCR report is filled out.

The clearance rate for murder in 2019 was 59%. This means 41% were not solved. About 84% of the murderers who are unknown by the time of the UCR report remain unknown. It is likely most of the 16% solved are not intimate partner murders. Those that are, are unlikely to have been living with their victim.

The clearance rate for murder in 2020 dropped to 54.4%.

So-Called Known Murderers

The next largest category of murderers is acquaintances. It is 20%. These are included in people you “know”.

The slightest connection to you counts as you “knowing” them. The gang-banger who was in your remedial English class in community college, the drug dealer you filed a report about, the laborer who cleaned up your neighbor’s yard, the person who involved you in a fender-bender, the high school classmate who was always in trouble, are all counted as an acquaintance. So are addicts’ suppliers, criminals’ associates, and members of a gang.

The next largest category is members of the immediate family. They are 11%. This is who most people place in the category as “known”. This includes estranged and ex-family, such as ex-wives and ex-husband.

Then come strangers, at 10%. These are the hardest murderers to catch.

Boyfriend/girlfriend is at 5%. This includes ex-boyfriend/girlfriends.
Other family is 2%.
Friends are at 2%.
Neighbors are 1%

Employers/employees are just a trace, at .16%, too small to show up on the chart.

Acquaintances Aren’t Family

To create the misleading statistic that most murderers are “known” to their victim, those who want you to believe self-defense is futile, include acquaintance with family, friends, and neighbors.

Then to inflate the “known” numbers, they assume the murderers who are unknown have the same percentage of immediate family and relationships as those where the relationship is known. It is a bad assumption.

Applying the misleading math used by Gun Control Advocates to the 2019 figures creates that false figure that 80% of murderers are “known” to their victims.

A more realistic appraisal is unknown, stranger, and acquaintance categories make up 79% of murderers. Of the remaining 21%, a large number are ex-spouses, ex-boyfriend/girlfriends, and estranged family and friends.

The numbers of exes and estranged are not reported. A great many domestic homicides occur between ex-spouses, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, and estranged others.

It is likely the number of people who murder someone living with them, when determined, will be less than 10% of the total.

More and more people are effectively defending themselves against people they know who have become deadly enemies.

Just because you know someone, doesn’t mean you cannot defend against them. Legal measures such as restraining orders make a self-defense claim clearer to police, prosecutors, and courts. This correspondent refers to these as cases of domestic defense.

Taking a quick look, 20 cases of domestic defense were reported by the media in the last three months. The vast majority involved firearms as a defensive tool, where the attackers were wounded or killed. It is likely most defensive uses do not result in shots fired or in people wounded or killed. Most are not reported to police, and of those reported, few are mentioned in the media. Actual domestic defense uses of guns are probably 50-100 times greater than those reported in the media.

Self-defense against intimates is almost never counted as justified homicide in the FBI UCR, because of the extremely limited definition of justified homicide the UCR uses.

The bottom line: Firearms are effectively used for self-defense when confronting attackers, both known and unknown. Don’t fall for the anti’s propaganda war hide the truth.

SCOPE Annual Banquet Followup

Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:19:35 GMT

SCOPE Annual Banquet Followup

The weather outside was wet but 200 people braved the rainstorm to hear Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North speak at SCOPE’s annual banquet on Saturday the 16th. This year’s event was held at Breeze’s in Utica.

Prior to the banquet, Oliver North posed for pictures with attendees and signed autographs as a large crowd enjoyed the opportunity to meet living American history and also “rub elbows” with other Second Amendment supporters. Many people had the opportunity to talk, personally, to North and hear stories about his life experiences.

Colonel North entertained the audience with stories about his own military service in the Marines, his deep Christian faith and his role as a father and grandfather. He volunteered that he gave a Bible, a compass and a shotgun to his children and grandchildren, on their birthdays, as things to guide them through life.

He talked about the difference in American attitudes between the days after 9/11 and today and then praised those who enlisted in the military right after 9/11.

North pulled no punches in criticizing the Afghan pullout debacle. He expressed his concern about whether Joe Biden was mentally up for the job of President but expressed even greater concern that it is Kamala Harris “sitting in the wings”.

North weaved references to SCOPE in his speech, quoting our mission statement and the principles we follow. He had obviously done his homework on SCOPE.

Showing that he was as on top of current gun control issues as he was when he was President of the NRA, he also talked about the absurdity of several laws being proposed or enacted and how they are meant to chip away at the 2^nd Amendment. He called upon members of the audience to get active in opposition to those laws and contact their representatives.

In a question-and-answer session after the speech, he answered several questions from the audience. When asked about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, he explained that Joe Biden was apparently advised by his military advisers to leave troops in Afghanistan until after everyone and everything were out. North then asked: If so, who was it that advised Biden otherwise? Who was pulling the strings behind the scenes?

When asked about the way Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stu Scheller has been treated for remarks critical of the way the Afghanistan evacuation was held, Colonel North explained that Scheller had violated Marine Corps’ regulations but the way he is being treated is way out of line.

In a surprise at the end of the speech, Colonel North donated $500 to SCOPE and challenged the audience to match it. Sixteen people responded positively, in an unexpected - but happily received - fund raiser.

Colonel North’s speech was videotaped and will be made available for chapters to use.

Several politicians also attended to show their support of the 2^nd Amendment and SCOPE: NY State Senator Ed Rath, Congressional Candidate Joe Sempolinski, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, Assemblywoman Marianne Buttenschon, Assemblyman Joe Angelino, Lewis County Sheriff Michael Carpinelli and Oneida Count Sheriff Rob Maciol.

Many attendees enjoyed the tour of the Remington Arms factory. One of the tour attendees, Tracy Marisa, described it this way: “Earlier in the day, many attendees took advantage of the opportunity to tour the Remington Arms factory in Ilion, a few minutes’ drive from Utica. Management as well as other employees volunteered their time and expertise to guide us on an over-1/2-mile walk through the four-floor historic facility. Plant manager Bob Skinner started things off with a brief history of the company founded by Eliphalet Remington and continuing down to the present day, when the new owners have taken up the mantle of Remington Arms and returned to Ilion from Alabama”.

“RemArms is not producing any handguns at the moment, but they are making rifles and shotguns for both the general public as well as police and military uses”.

“Without giving away any trade secrets, our tour guide took us through many of the areas necessary to turn blocks and tubes of steel into Remington firearms: milling, broaching, hammering, adding sights, polishing, heat treating, coating, assembly, test firing, and boxing. Many of these processes are “robotic” in the sense of being computer-controlled, but there are also benches where craftsmen assemble guns by hand”.

“Attendees were also able to visit the Remington Museum. It has been (and at least for now) closed to the public, but was staffed by volunteers and opened especially for us SCOPE members. It contains everything from historic guns and an 1880s bicycle (yes, RemArms made bikes at one time, too), to a video of the manufacturing processes in the factory and original paintings produced for advertising purposes by famous American illustrators such as NC Wyeth”.

“All in all, the visit to the plant and museum were well worth the time and effort. Kudos to our SCOPE organizers as well as the RemArms folks who gave up their Saturday so we could have an informative and enjoyable field trip”.

The banquet, itself, was a success because of the efforts of Gene Nolan and Kandee Tabor in organizing it, Marsha Devine in putting together the program and numerous volunteers doing the behind-the-scenes work. As always, our chapters and Sue Maressa continued to step up.

Schuyler County S.C.O.P.E. “meet the candidates night” held October 14

Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:42:54 GMT

Schuyler County S.C.O.P.E. “meet the candidates night” held October 14. Candidates graded on Second Amendment.

Date/Time: October 14, 2021 at 7:00 pm

Location: Montour Falls Moose Lodge, 2096 State Rt 14, Montour Falls, NY

The Schuyler County Chapter of Shooters Committee on Political Education (S.C.O.P.E.) invited candidates for county and state office to attend its October 14 (Thursday) quarterly meeting as a “Meet the Candidates Night.”

Candidates were given the opportunity to make a few brief remarks and answer questions from the membership. The public was invited to attend as well. Over fifty members of S.C.O.P.E. and the general public were in the audience.

Among the topics addressed were each candidate’s belief in the right to keep and bear arms, possible “Constitutional County” legislation for Schuyler County, pistol permit procedures, support for law enforcement and related issues. Each candidate in attendance affirmed his or her strong support for the Second Amendment.

The following candidates attended and addressed the audience:

· Kevin Rumsey, Republican Candidate for Sheriff

· Breck Spaulding, Independent Candidate for Sheriff

· Theresa Philbin, Republican Candidate for County Clerk

· David Reed, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District I)

· Laurence Jaynes, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District II)

· James Howell, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District IV)

Following the meeting, the S.C.O.P.E. executive committee determined that each candidate who attended should receive an “A” rating from the group, based on their presentations and/or responses to a written S.C.O.P.E questionnaire. An “A” grade means that S.C.O.P.E. believes these candidates will work to preserve, protect and defend the right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution.

The following candidates were invited but did not appear or send a representative in their place:

· Joseph Fazzary, Republican Candidate for District Attorney

· Howard Cabezas, Democrat Candidate for County Legislature (District I)

· Michael Lausell, Democrat Candidate for County Legislature (District III)

· Molly Fitzgerald, Democrat Candidate for Supreme Court Justice

· Elizabeth Aherne, Republican Candidate for Supreme Court Justice

· Patrick O’Sullivan, Republican Candidate for Supreme Court Justice

Because these candidates did not appear or submit responses to the written S.C.O.P.E. questionnaire, these candidates received a “No Grade-Incomplete” rating from the group. S.C.O.P.E. cannot say that these candidates will or will not work to preserve, protect and defend the right to keep and bear arms.

S.C.O.P.E is a non-partisan statewide organization dedicated to preserving Second Amendment Civil Rights through public education and promoting voter participation. Because of its non-partisan nature, S.C.O.P.E. does not endorse candidates, but does grade candidates, based on their perceived support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Final Grades:

· Kevin Rumsey, Republican Candidate for Sheriff: Grade A

· Breck Spaulding, Independent Candidate for Sheriff Grade A

· Theresa Philbin, Republican Candidate for County Clerk: Grade A

· David Reed, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District I): Grade A

· Laurence Jaynes, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District II) :Grade A

· James Howell, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District IV): Grade A

· Joseph Fazzary, Republican Candidate for District Attorney: No Grade/Incomplete

· Howard Cabezas, Democrat Candidate for County Legislature (District I): No Grade/Incomplete

· Michael Lausell, Democrat Candidate for County Legislature (District III): No Grade/Incomplete

· Molly Fitzgerald, Democrat Candidate for Supreme Court Justice: No Grade/Incomplete

· Elizabeth Aherne, Republican Candidate for Supreme Court Justice: No Grade/Incomplete

· Patrick O’Sullivan, Republican Candidate for Supreme Court Justice: No Grade/Incomplete

September is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month.

Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:16:57 GMT

Dear Friend,

Suicide is a national public health issue that affects everyone, but especially our veterans and service members, who are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide than non-veterans.

September is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month.

Locally, we are fortunate to have the leadership of the Canandaigua VA Medical Center, home to the Veterans Crisis Line, a free and confidential resource for veterans and service members who are in crisis.

This support is available to all veterans, even if you’re not registered with VA or enrolled in VA health care. If you are a veteran or service member in crisis, or are a family member or friend concerned about a loved one, there are trained and caring VA responders ready to help.

Call the Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 and press 1. Or text 838255. Online chat is also available at VeteransCrisisLine.net.

I am urging Governor Kathy Hochul to sign my bill that will improve the reporting of veteran deaths by suicide so we have better data that can help us assist more veterans in crisis. Senate bill S.2036B passed the Senate and Assembly this year. Thank you to Wayne Thompson and the Finger Lakes Veterans Advocacy Council for their instrumental work on this legislation.

Let’s continue to support and look out for one another. God bless our veterans and the men and women of our U.S. Armed Forces.

Sincerely,

Pam Helming

Senator, 54th District

P.S. Help is also available for non-veterans. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides support for everyone. Call 1-800-273-8255. Check with the county where you live to find local resources, too.

Albany Office:
517 Legislative Office Bldg
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2366

District Office:
425 Exchange St
Geneva, NY 14456
315-568-9816

November’s Ballot by George Phillips

Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:45:59 GMT

November’s Ballot by George Phillips

Stolen elections are a path to nullifying the 2^nd Amendment.

As Americans continued to question the authenticity and fairness of the last election, New York State politicians have placed before voters the following referendums on November 2nd in our election:

First, to make permanent absentee ballot voting for any voter for any reason in every election. Millions of New Yorkers voting absentee on a regular basis would surely increase fraud – especially when local boards of election are ill-equipped to verify signatures of absentee voters.
Second, to allow same day voter registration up until election day – negating laws which require voters to register 30 days before an election. Illegal immigrants and non-New York residents could easily register to vote and vote before local boards of elections had time to check for fraud. If you are not a citizen, you should not be able to vote in our state.
Third, to amend the Independent Redistricting Commission allowing the liberal Democrat majority legislature to reject non-partisan district maps with a 60% vote and draw their own partisan maps for political gain. Under current law, the Democrats need a two-thirds supermajority to reject two separate independent maps.

Critical to a free state are fair elections. Lovers of liberty and rule of law principles should:

Consider whether absentee voting for an any reason in New York will increase fraud.
Consider whether same day voter registration in New York will lead to more illegal votes.
Consider whether amending the Independent Redistricting Commission will empower New York City Democrats and Pelosi allies from drawing Congressional districts here in New York.

Protect honest elections. The future of our state depends on it.

George Phillips is an American History teacher from the Binghamton area, former Regional Director of Reclaim New York and a former candidate for Congress.

White House will withdraw David Chipman's nomination as head of ATF

Thu, 09 Sep 2021 13:54:54 GMT

White House will withdraw David Chipman's nomination as head of ATF By Manu Raju, Jeff Zeleny, John Harwood and Kate Sullivan, CNN Updated 9:41 AM ET, Thu September 9, 2021

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 23: Former special agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) David Chipman testifies during a hearing before the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force January 23, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The task force held a hearing on "the comprehensive steps that Congress can take to reduce gun violence while respecting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans." (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

(CNN)The White House will withdraw the nomination of David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, three sources familiar with the decision told CNN.

The move comes amid concerns among moderate Democrats and independent Maine Sen. Angus King -- along with GOP senators -- over Chipman's past record on gun control.

"We do not have the votes. We will land him in a non-confirmed job in the administration," one senior administration official told CNN.

Chipman, a former career official at ATF, came under scrutiny from pro-gun rights supporters and the National Rifle Association for his work as a senior adviser to Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords -- the organization started by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at an event in her Arizona district in 2011.

Top Democrats had been quietly moving to lock down support for Biden's nominee, but Chipman struggled to gain support because some senators questioned if his past record as an advocate for stricter gun laws would make him a less effective director.

The Washington Post was first to report on the withdrawn nomination.

The White House declined to comment when reached by CNN.

Biden nominated Chipman to head the ATF in April, seeking the first Senate-confirmed director of the agency since 2015 and just the second in its history.

CNN's KFile reported that Chipman failed to disclose some interviews and events dating back to 2012 on paperwork filed with the Senate for consideration of his nomination.

In one undisclosed 2019 talk given to a law firm titled "Can the Right to Bear Arms Coexist with Gun Control?," Chipman said his views and politics weren't typical of most at the ATF and in law enforcement because the groups were mostly "a very conservative bunch, primarily of white men."

The withdrawal of Chipman comes as Democrats have struggled to overcome GOP resistance to measures aimed at curbing the use of guns, and amid a rise in mass shootings in the United States. The House has approved two bills to expand background checks on firearm sales, including one to do so on private and commercial transactions, but that lacks the support of moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.

While at the ATF, Chipman "disrupted firearms trafficking operations in Virginia that were supplying illegal guns to New York City, served as a member of ATF's version of SWAT, and was named the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Firearms Programs," according to his bio on the website for Giffords.

In recent years, the ATF has become most visible in the aftermath of mass shootings around the US and at other crimes involving firearms.

According to its website, ATF "protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products."

This story has been updated with additional information.

CNN's Paul LeBlanc contributed to this report.

SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to New York Gun Control November 3

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:26:38 GMT

SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to New York Gun Control November 3

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear a challenge to New York gun control that will highlight the extent of constitutional protections for carrying a gun outside the home.

The case centers on New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “proper cause” before being issued a carry permit.

The case was brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and private citizens Brandon Nash and Robert Koch. Nash and Koch were denied a concealed permit based on the “proper cause” requirement.

The defendants are Keith M. Corlett, in his official capacity as superintendent of New York State Police, Richard J. McNally Jr., in his official capacity as Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial District, and Licensing Officer for Rensselaer County.

The petitioners contend:

New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

And the petitioners seek a ruling as to “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

A federal judge ruled against Nash and Koch in 2018, and his ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court.

Attorney Paul Clement petitioned the SCOTUS to hear the case, writing:

[“Proper Cause’ laws] deny to ordinary law-abiding citizens like petitioners Nash and Koch the rights that the Second Amendment protects. By requiring a permit applicant to submit evidence differentiating him or herself from the body of “the people” guaranteed rights under the Second Amendment, the New York regime is not merely an infringement; the regime is antithetical to the constitutional freedom itself.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, Case Number 19-156 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

The new Firing Lines is posted!

Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:32:45 GMT

The new and important edition of the Firing Lines, SCOPE's newsletter, is available for downloading at:

https://www.scopeny2a.org/resources/Documents/FL%20July%20August%202021.pdf

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign from office in 14 days

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:27:24 GMT

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign from office in 14 days

BY SPECTRUM NEWS STAFF NEW YORK STATE, UPDATED 12:20 PM ET AUG. 10, 2021 PUBLISHED 12:08 PM ET AUG. 10, 2021

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he would resign office in 14 days in the wake of the attorney general's report that concluded he harassed multiple women.

"New York tough means New York loving, and I love New York, and I love you, and I would never want to be unhelpful in any way," Cuomo said.

Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul will assume office.

A New Case Gives the Supreme Court a Chance To Defend Gun Rights

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:45:30 GMT

A New Case Gives the Supreme Court a Chance To Defend Gun Rights John Stossel 6.30.2021

It's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn't demonstrated a "special need."

Why did they have to prove such a "need"? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live.

"Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court ruling," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He's excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch's lawsuit over New York's law.

I understand Nash and Koch's frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like "metal knuckle knives" and "kung fu stars," fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized, and then go in person to police headquarters.

There they fingerprinted me, demanded reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun, and charged me $430.

I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was "denied."

I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that "special need" to carry a gun. After years of confronting crooks on TV, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life.

Not good enough, said the NYC permit department. They turned me down again.

Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

Scams like that thrive whenever politicians impose too many restrictions on people's freedom. In parts of California, people got gun permits if they donated to a sheriff's campaign.

It's one more reason why Gottlieb is excited about this new Supreme Court case. Court watchers predict his side will win, especially because there are now more originalist judges on the court.

That means it's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Some people say that will be terrible.

"Women are less safe!" says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. "Every vulnerable population—LGBT people, students of color—has more to fear!"

But then why are 58 percent of new gun owners Blacks, and 40 percent women?

"An awful lot of women bought a firearm to protect themselves and feel a whole lot safer!" says Gottlieb. "Eight hundred thousand times a year, a person uses a firearm to protect themselves. If you call 911, the police usually get there after the crime is over.

Over the last decades, most states liberalized their gun laws. More allow concealed carry. Gun control advocates predicted that would lead to an epidemic of shootings.

The opposite happened. As concealed carry was legalized, violent crime went down. Especially telling, crime dropped in each state right after the law was changed.

Gottlieb says that's because "an armed society is a polite society."

As a reporter who attended only liberal schools and worked in liberal newsrooms, I'd been taught that more guns means more violence. Even after interviewing violent criminals in prison and hearing many say that what they feared most was "not the police" but that the person being robbed "might be armed," I still believed that more guns meant more crime.

Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

More guns really does mean less crime.

Rep. Claudia Tenney leads 168 House Republicans in bid to overturn NY gun law.

Tue, 06 Jul 2021 21:33:36 GMT

Rep. Claudia Tenney leads 168 House Republicans in bid to overturn NY gun law

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-New Hartford, wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York's law that bans firearm owners from carrying concealed guns outside of the home. Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

By Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

Washington – Rep. Claudia Tenney is leading a group of 168 House Republicans who are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 110-year-old New York state gun law.

Tenney and her GOP colleagues said today they plan to file a legal brief supporting the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association’s challenge to New York’s law that strictly limits who can carry a gun outside of the home.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear an appeal to a lower court ruling that upheld New York’s law. It marks the first time in more than a decade that the nation’s top court will decide a major Second Amendment case.

Banning America's Rifle: An Assault on the Second Amendment?

Tue, 06 Jul 2021 21:24:59 GMT

Banning America's Rifle: An Assault on the Second Amendment?

This is a very long but very informative article on the AR-15 rifle. If you are not an accomplished user of the AR-15 rifle we highly recommend this article for you~

"The AR-15 rifle has aptly been called “America’s Rifle.” It is the most popular rifle in the United States, owned and used by millions of law-abiding citizens. Does prohibiting it infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

This article begins with an examination of the meanings of term “assault weapon,” features that some lawmakers and activists have claimed define such weapons, and the rarity of their use in crime. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the Second Amendment, which protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes, precludes bans on such firearms. After that, it examines the text, history, and tradition of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to show that the right keeps pace with and continues to exist as technological improvements are made to firearms. It demonstrates how judicial decisions upholding laws that ban these commonly possessed firearms conflict with and undermine the right. It ends with a challenge to judges and litigants to take the Second Amendment seriously."

Read the complete article here: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/banning-america-s-rifle-an-assault-on-the-second-amendment?fbclid=IwAR1yhe9dFaviXmZCbT7KN78M0jmJ-vd2BnjrmEhZkTqXtM4JyaYdB5TP70A

Schuyler Co. Govt Opposes New NYS Gun Control Bill

Fri, 18 Jun 2021 23:35:18 GMT

Schuyler Co. Govt Opposes New NYS Gun Control Bill

SCHUYLER COUNTY, N.Y. (WENY)- A new gun law may be in the works for New York State and one local government is calling on Governor Cuomo to veto it.

The legislation if approved by the Governor would allow anyone that's a victim of gun violence to sue the company that made the gun.

The Schuyler County attorney Steve Getman helped write a letter on behalf of the County Legislature in hopes of persuading Governor Cuomo to *not* sign it into law.

"To our knowledge, he has not yet signed the bill which is why Schuyler County and I believe and a number of other counties are asking him to veto it,” Getman said.

Lawmakers in Albany recently passed a bill intended to allow civil lawsuits can be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers. Supporters say it will help cut down on gun violence by holding companies legally accountable.

In response to the bill advancing in Albany, the Schuyler County Legislature voted unanimously to send the letter to Governor Cuomo urging him to veto the law. Getman says the County Legislature opposes the proposal because a criminal who uses a gun has no connection to the business that made or sold that gun.

"It would be like declaring drunk driving a public nuisance and then allowing people to sue the local car dealer whenever anybody misuses a motor vehicle in a drunk driving accident,” Getman said.

Getman explains this new bill doesn't only apply to big gun businesses. It also will affect small businesses.

"It can apply to anybody who sells any kind of firearm. Including a mom-and-pop shop in your local neighborhood or anybody that sells magazines or accessories,” Getman said.

The bill requires gun manufacturers to prevent their guns from falling into the hands of criminals. However, the process to do exactly that remains vague and unclear. Instead, Getman believes we should focus on other issues to combat gun violence like the state's current bail reform.

"Accused criminals are being arrested and being returned to the streets in hours and sometimes turning around and committing new crimes,” Getman said.

A large gun manufacturer with connections to Upstate New York is also speaking out about the proposal. Remington Arms has a plant in Herkimer County. The company says in part if this bill becomes law any business dealing with firearms will abandon the Empire State to avoid a tidal wave of lawsuits and new regulation.

Moving forward, the bill is awaiting a vote in the assembly before it heads to Governor Cuomo's desk.

A Little New York Nostalgia: The Remington Model 11

Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:47:14 GMT

The Remington Model 11 Sportsman In World War II (Made in Ilion, NY)

Plain, utilitarian, unadorned—those are the words typically associated with standard military-issued firearms of World War II. While some individuals chose to carry more elaborate guns, like the famous ivory-handled sidearms of General George Patton, your average G.I. carried firearms free from unnecessary factory embellishments that would only add to the time and expense during manufacturing. Even functional decorative work, like checkering, is often absent from military guns, despite the undeniable benefit that a firm grip would provide in the mud and blood of combat.

That isn’t to say that such mass-produced firearms can’t be works of industrial art in their own right, but the primary purpose was not aesthetic. On the other end of the spectrum, sporting arms have historically been available with finely wrought embellishments on the wood and metal for the discerning customer willing to pay the extra expense required for the skilled labor needed for the work. On the metal, these extra details often centered around the type of game that the user of the firearm would be likely to take, be it a magnificently antlered stag engraved on a rifle or birds and rabbits on a shotgun.

A Photo of the author's U.S. Ordnance marked Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

While the more elaborate guns were aimed at a wealthy clientele able to pay a significant surcharge for the work, even the common man could obtain a moderately embellished firearm at a fair price. One example of a firearm that saw widespread usage in the hands of average hunters is the Remington Model 11 and its variant, “The Sportsman." Introduced in 1905 as a licensed copy of Browning’s Auto-5, the Remington Model 11 was commercially successful and provided hunters with a relatively reliable semi-automatic shotgun to compete with the numerous well regarded pump actions available at the time.

The Model 11 and Sportsman are quite similar to one another, with the most notable difference being capacity. The Model 11 holds 4+1, while the Sportsman only fits 2+1 to comply with hunting restrictions in certain states. Additionally, there are slight dimensional changes to the fore-end, and a different cap tops the fore-end of each variant.

The "game scene" roll mark on the right side of the author's Model 11 Sportsman, a pheasant walking through brush.

As World War II loomed, both came standard with a “game scene” roll stamped on either side of the receiver—a duck in flight over a marshland on the left, and a pheasant walking through the grass on the right. Since these are both animals the shotguns would likely encounter during their service as sporting arms, such marks are fitting, but totally incongruous with standard service markings of plain-Jane military firearm, right?

Normal government contracting standards were thrown out the window after the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Overnight, the nation found itself at war, and in desperate need of arms to support the war effort. Weapons were not only needed for overseas service, but also for training new recruits, and conducting guard duty at all manner of manufacturing plants and other facilities that suddenly found themselves indispensable to the cause of victory.

The "game scene" roll mark on the left side, a duck in flight over a marshland.

Due to this, the government, in the form of the newly established War Production Board, took dramatic action to ensure that enough weapons would be available for defense use. The first, Limitation Order, No. L-55, issued on Feb. 23, 1942 identified that “national defense requirements have created a shortage of shotguns for plant patrol and other local guard duties” and that it was “expected that Government orders for large numbers of 12-ga. shotguns will be placed.”

To address those issues, it ordered all manufacturers engaged in the production of shotguns to convert all facilities capable of making 12-ga. shotguns to that purpose. This didn’t just include traditional “Trench Gun” platforms like the Winchester Model 1897 or Model 12, but also all “single barrel, double barrel, repeating, riot, pump and any other type of shotgun of any gauge whatsoever.”

The author's U.S. Ordnance marked Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

Additionally, any machine or equipment that could be used for assembling or manufacturing a 12-ga. shotgun could not be used for making a shotgun of any other gauge, and the allowable production of shotguns of other gauges was severely restricted. Finally, manufacturers were prohibited from selling, delivering, shipping, transferring or otherwise disposing of any 12-ga. shotgun unless it was transferred to the federal government, state or local governments, sent via Lend-Lease or sold via agreement to specified allied countries.

The War Production Board doubled down only four days later when on February 27, 1942 it issued limitation Order No L-60. This order expanded the stated shortage to include “pistols, rifles and shotguns for use in police work, plant patrol and other local guard duties” and increased the scope of the restriction on sales. Now no person, expect manufacturers, could sell, lease, trade, lend, deliver, ship, transfer or otherwise dispose of any new pistol, rifle or shotgun unless it was to the excepted parties from L-55.

An aerial gunnery trainee posing with a long-barreled Remington Model 11 fixed with a Cutt's compensator, raised aerial sights, and a chassis that simulates an aircraft machine gun mount.

This was also the case if an order was already in transit to the destination or an order had already been placed by an individual with a high “preference rating”. Furthermore, all “dealers, jobbers, wholesalers and distributors” were required to furnish a complete inventory of their rifles, pistols and shotguns to the War Production Board within 45 days. Notably absent from the restrictions were used firearms, with newspapers like the Sycamore, Ill. True Republican shrewdly noting that, because of this, “their value will probably boom.”

The order was explained as a temporary expedient that was necessary to determine the arms requirements for the armed forces and defense production use, and as such the order was narrowed after three months to only apply to “defense rifles, defense pistols and defense shotguns.” The category of defense rifles included any rifle chambered in .30-’06 Sprg., and a selection of .22 cal. rifles deemed suitable for training use. Defense pistols were defined as any .22 cal. H&R “Sportsman” Model target revolvers, and all pistols manufactured by Colt, Smith and Wesson or High Standard.

Two Remington Model 11 shotguns mounted into a mock-up twin dorsal turret. This is meant to simulate the dorsal turrets used on many American medium and heavy bombers during World War II, including the B-17 and B-24. The use of 12-ga. shotguns instead of .50-cal AN/M2 machine guns also eliminated the worry of errant rounds in the air during training.

Finally, defense shotguns were all 12-ga., and any semi-automatic or pump-action 16-ga. Again, sales of these outside of the U.S. Government were prohibited with only a few narrow exceptions. One of those, oddly enough, allowed for the sale of designated-defense rifles or shotguns if the net cost to the seller was greater than $72.50 or $45 respectively ($1,169.85 and $726.11 in modern money).

Since the standard Remington auto-loading shotguns fell below that threshold, they were destined for near-exclusive sales to government purchasers. The Sportsman and Model 11 saw their most widespread service far from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. The long-barreled variants, sometimes topped with a Cutt’s Compensator, were used for training aerial gunners and anti-aircraft personnel on the concepts of lead and follow-through against moving targets.

A Remington Model 11 set up on an aerial training mount in the bed of a truck. The truck would drive down a course as the trainee engaged targets.

And they weren’t only used for traditional style clay shooting – shotguns were also fixed into contraptions designed to imitate the gun mounts that the aircrew would later use in combat. This gave the students the ability to practice traversing an off-the-shoulder firearm, familiarize themselves with the sight and trigger setups and gain valuable experience—all without having to worry about the enormous safety zones that would be created by firing a .50-cal. machine gun into the air.

And the training wasn’t just stationary, with some students learning to engage moving clays while they were carried along on the back of trucks, playing the part of American bomber aircraft. The “riot gun” variants, with 20” barrels, were mostly destined for another purpose—guard duty. While some certainly made it into front-line combat, the majority of these guns lived a somewhat less exciting—but no less important—life back from the front.

A MP standing guard with a Remington Model 11 in hand.

This ranged from stateside industry protection, to guarding POWs and other prisoners both stateside and abroad. Shotguns of all types were often found in the hands of the newly formed Military Police Corps, officially established in 1941, who valued the shotgun as a tool well suited to managing prisoners and guarding rear areas where errant rifle shots might prove unnecessarily dangerous. One reason we never saw a “Trench Gun” style semi-automatic shotgun during the war may have been because of how the Model 11 operates.
It features a recoiling barrel that would make it largely incompatible with the easy mounting of a bayonet or heat shield. While other recoil operated weapons, such as the M1941 Johnson rifle, overcame this by having a small and lightweight bayonet that would reciprocate with the barrel, it was apparently never deemed important enough to design and field such a system for a long-recoil shotgun like the Remingtons. The pictured Remington Sportsman is one such example of a shotgun originally destined for civilian use that was pressed into service in the months following America’s entry into World War II.

The U.S. Ordnance and other markings on the barrel of the author's Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

It bears a high-polish blued finish, and is neatly roll-stamped with the standard game scenes across either side of the receiver. In contrast to these large embellishments, the US property markings are rather small. On the stock is a faint “Ordnance Wheel” featuring a flaming bomb atop two crossed-cannons and circled by a gunner’s belt. Most also bear an F.J.A. cartouche for Colonel Frank J. Atwood, with a smaller number having an earlier R.L.B. mark instead, for Colonel Roy L. Bowlin.
The metal is marked in two separate places, the left front of the receiver and the top rear of the barrel. Both locations feature a stamped “U.S.” and an Ordnance Flaming Bomb." The standard civilian markings are left in place, including patent information and choke information. All barrels used as riot guns, on both the Sportsman and Model 11, will be marked with “CYLINDER BORE” or “CYL” on the left rear of the barrel ,including a small number where an original choke marking was lined out at the factory, with the cylinder bore status being stamped in its place.

Interestingly, throughout wartime production, Remington retained the 2+1 capacity of The Sportsman even though they were no longer being made with hunting laws in mind, and it wouldn’t have taken much to increase capacity to the 4+1 as found on the Model 11. Perhaps for this reason, or maybe due to existing production capacity, Sportsman riot shotguns are scarcer than their Model 11 riot counterparts. As the war pressed on, existing stocks of pre-war parts quickly dried up.

Newly manufactured parts did away with some of the “frivolous” features found on civilian sporting arms. The duck and pheasant were quick to go, replaced by a plain and smooth-sided receivers. The high polish finish was also replaced with a low-luster blue, and Remington saw fit to prominently stamp such guns with “Military Finish”, presumably in order to indicate to anyone who may come across one at a later date that their civilian shotguns were made to a higher aesthetic standard.

An advertisement from World War II triumphing the use of 12-ga. ammunition used to help train gunners.

Even the checkering on the forearm and buttstock were dropped, despite them actually providing a tangible benefit in combat scenarios. On May 5, 1945, three days before the official German surrender, the War Production Board started the long process of returning to normal by revoking Limitation Order L-55, and releasing their strict control over the types of shotguns that manufacturers could produce.
In late August, after the Japanese war machine lay broken and ready to surrender, the WPB revoked the sections of L-60 relating to revolvers and shotguns. The American sporting shotgun industry was once again free to design, market, produce, and sell its products as it saw fit, and had ready customers in the form of returning G.I.s interested in the shooting sports. The Model 11 and “The Sportsman” are the least expensive U.S. WW2 martial shotguns available on the market today.
With almost 60,000 of all types purchased by the military they don’t have quite the same mystique surrounding them as the more famous “Trench Shotguns”, but they undeniably pulled their weight in a wide variety of roles across the globe during World War II. A collector looking for a military shotgun with a little bit of sporting flair can do a lot worse than an old Sportsman!

US judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:25:43 GMT

US judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Posted: JUN 5, 2021 / 06:25 AM CDT | Updated: JUN 6, 2021 / 06:59 AM CDT The Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

That comparison “completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban “has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” his ruling said.

States across the country relaxing gun ownership restrictions

Despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

“This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes,” the ruling said. “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

“In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle,” he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

“The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,” the state argued, because the weapons can still be used — just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez’s 2017 ruling against the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez’s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.

Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance.

Thu, 03 Jun 2021 18:00:53 GMT

"Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance." by Don Smith

To the Editor (Times of Wayne County):

Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance.

Consider these major causes of deaths and their percent of total deaths in 2019:

(1) Heart Disease: 635,260; 23.1%; (2) Cancer: 598,038; 21.7%; (3) Accidents (unintentional): 161,374; 5.9%; ..... (12) Gun Violence: 38,730; 1.4%

Some seek a ban on the commonly used modern sporting rifle or AR-15, albeit cosmetically similar to a military rifle, yet factually a semi-automatic rifle. Fully automatic firearms are prohibited from citizen ownership by the Firearms Act of 1968. FBI statistics show AR-15s to be used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes.

Finally, though well intentioned, proposals for gun liability insurance misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance. It is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events, “...not intentional behavior such as criminal acts...”, according to Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association. This applies to guns, cars or any instrument that is used to deliberately harm a person.

Consider this statement by State Senator Pam Helming: “It is time to stop playing politics and pass legislation that is clearly written, has been vetted by the public, and will truly protect our citizens without stripping the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford reminds us: “Insurance is not needed to exercise any other Constitutional right”.

Don Smith, Chairman

Wayne County S.C.O.P.E.
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Times of Wayne County
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Members! Save the date! 10/16/2021

Wed, 02 Jun 2021 17:12:44 GMT

Members! Save the Date! October 16, 2021

“America will never forget their sacrifices”

Sat, 29 May 2021 13:24:54 GMT

"America will never forget their sacrifices"

On May 29, 2004, America dedicated the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., which pays tribute to all Americans who served in history's most terrible war. Inscribed near a wall honoring those who gave their lives in World War II is a simple statement from Harry S. Truman: "Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.

At this time of year, when Americans kick off their summers with holiday weekend vacations and barbecues, it is good to pause and remember our countrymen who have answered the call to serve, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Conflict: Revolutionary War (1775-1783)

U.S. Military Deaths: 25,000

Conflict: War of 1812 (1812-1815)

U.S. Military Deaths: 20,000

Conflict: Mexican War (1846-1848)

U.S. Military Deaths: 13,300

Conflict: Civil War (1861-1865)

U.S. Military Deaths: Union 360,000 | Confederate 260,000

Conflict: Spanish-American War (1898)

U.S. Military Deaths: 2,500

Conflict: World War I (1917-1918)

U.S. Military Deaths: 116,500

Conflict: World War II (1941-1945)

U.S. Military Deaths: 405,400

Conflict: Korean War (1950-1953)

U.S. Military Deaths: 36,600

Conflict: Vietnam War (1964-1973)

U.S. Military Deaths: 58,200

Conflict: Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)

U.S. Military Deaths: 380

Conflict: Afghanistan (2001- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 1,000**

Conflict: Iraq War (2003- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 4,400**

*Includes battlefield and other deaths, such as soldiers who died of disease. Because official records may be incomplete,

especially prior to World War I, military death figures are estimates.

**Approximate military deaths as of June 1, 2010.

Anti-Gun Mayor Says She's The Victim After Husband Busted On Drug, Gun Charges

Sun, 23 May 2021 00:50:19 GMT

Anti-Gun Mayor Says She's The Victim After Husband Busted On Drug, Gun Charges by Cam Edwards | May 21, 2021

What’s an anti-gun mayor supposed to say when police raid her home and find illegally possessed firearms and illicit drugs inside? In the case of Rochester, New York mayor Lovely Warren, the answer is to claim that you’re the victim of a political investigation and an attempt to derail your re-election campaign.

“I find the timing of yesterday’s events, three weeks before early voting starts, to be highly suspicious,” Warren said, in her speech, which was posted by Rochester First.

“There’s nothing implicating me in these charges today, because I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t spoken to Tim since his arrest, and I’m not standing here to defend him.”

“Tim” is Timothy Granison, Warren’s husband and the alleged owner of an unregistered handgun discovered in the couple’s home earlier this week (a modern sporting rifle was found as well, though so far police haven’t said if was registered with the state as required under New York’s SAFE Act set of gun control laws). Warren’s correct in noting that she’s not currently facing charges in connection with the drug investigation, though the mayor is facing felony charges of her own in a case involving alleged violations of the state’s campaign financing laws.

Still, it stretches credulity to believe that Warren would have had no idea of her husband’s alleged activity. If the mayor can’t even keep felons from keeping drugs and guns in her home (Granison was convicted of felony robbery in 1997, when he was 18), can she really be trusted to keep drug dealers and gun traffickers out of the city she manages?

Rather than address that obvious question, Warren instead chose to pin the blame on the prosecutor in her first public comments after her husband’s arrest, accusing Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley of targeting her husband in an attempt to help Warren’s opponent in the mayoral race. Dooley, however, had already thrown cold water on that idea while announcing the arrest of Granison and six other accused drug dealers on Thursday.

In her remarks to reporters, Doorley took pains to dismiss any suggestion that the raid on Warren’s home and the arrest of her husband were motivated by politics. She explained that Granison only became a suspect at some point into the seven-month probe.

“I’m sure there are going to be people out there who think that this is politically motivated. It was not,” Doorley said. “Timothy Granison was not the original target of this wire investigation.

“Approximately seven months I met with members of law enforcement, we had a target, we began to go up on phones, as we do with a wiretap investigations,” she went on. “During the course of the investigation, Timothy Granison became apparent to us as being a plyer in this narcotics ring, and it was at this point that we followed the evidence. Simple as that.”

While the outcome of Granison’s criminal case is unclear (he’s pleaded not guilty to the felony charges), one thing is certain: next Tuesday’s mayoral debate between Lovely Warren and challenger Malik Evans, a Rochester city council member, should be one for the ages. Thankfully, it’ll be streamed online, so even if you don’t live in the Rochester area you’ll be able to tune in for what will be some must-see TV.

Saying No to the Crown

Sat, 22 May 2021 17:31:50 GMT

Saying No to the Crown

After the Revolutionary War, some Americans doubted that the newly freed colonies could govern themselves. In May 1782 George Washington received a letter from one of his officers, Colonel Lewis Nicola, proposing that the general use the army to make himself king of the United States.

Washington’s response on May 22 was sharp:

With a mixture of great surprise and astonishment I have read with attention the sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured sir, no occurrence in the course of the war has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the army as you have expressed, [which are] big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable. . . . Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country – concern for yourself or posterity – or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind.

Yet there were some who still wondered if General Washington would give up his power. He had the adoration of the people and command of the Continental Army. Washington erased doubts once and for all in late 1783 when he appeared before Congress, meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, to “surrender into their hands the trust committed to me” by resigning his commission.

King George had said that if Washington voluntarily gave up power, then he truly would be the greatest man on earth. Oliver Cromwell hadn’t done it. Napoleon would not do it. But Washington did. He might have had a kingdom for the asking. He was not interested. He put his country first, not himself.

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant.

Mon, 17 May 2021 22:55:22 GMT

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant Andrew Chung

The United States Supreme Court Building's facade is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to make it easier for police to enter a home without a warrant for reasons of health or public safety, throwing out a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Rhode Island man after officers entered his home and confiscated his guns.

The 9-0 ruling directed the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider Edward Caniglia's lawsuit accusing police of violating his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife.

Lower courts had ruled that police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case centered on a legal doctrine that gives officers leeway to engage in "community caretaking" to ensure public safety. In its ruling, the Supreme Court, which has previously applied this doctrine to vehicles, said it does not apply to the home as well.

"What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

In ruling against Caniglia, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that even if his case did not involve an emergency, the police conduct was justified under the community caretaking doctrine.

There has been heightened concern over police conduct, including how authorities deal with mentally ill people, in the wake of protests in many cities last year against racism and police brutality.

President Joe Biden's administration backed police in the case. A Justice Department lawyer told the justices that officers should not be required to obtain warrants in situations in which people could be seriously harmed.

Where Are All The Guns?

Thu, 13 May 2021 13:00:03 GMT

Where Are All The Guns? by Frank Melloni - Thursday, April 29, 2021

Where are all the guns? If you walk into any gun store these days, you are likely to hear this question uttered across the counter. With more than five million law-abiding citizens making their first purchase, it is no wonder that we are seeing a shortage of just about every type of firearm on the market. The follow-up questions, of course, are “Why's it taking so long to recover?” and “What is being done to replenish the market?” Curious myself, I reached out to some of the biggest manufacturers to find out what their new production approach was and maybe even get a little peek behind the curtain.

Savage Arms

Of all the manufacturers that I spoke with, Savage was the most optimistic. The only roadblock that they claim to be hitting is the lead times on certain products, namely the Asian-made optics for some of its complete firearm packages. While the focus during late 2020 was on the Axis and Axis II families, today production is up across the board without major shutdowns of any one product type.

By implementing a third shift and ramping production up to seven days a week, the lines are running nonstop. The only interruption to speak of occurred during the middle of 2020 to reorganize and reconfigure the factory to meet CDC guidelines and provide a safer workplace. Our source over there signed off by saying, “In our production facilities, we have generated well over 100-percent growth in the last eight months.

Partners and suppliers are also working to keep up with demand. With our Stevens pump shotgun partner, [Savage] reconfigured and expanded their production capacity to produce even more of their security-style shotguns, a best seller for 2020. Last spring, we sold about four months of regular inventory of these in just three days.”

Kimber America

Defensive handguns have grabbed a major share of the market. With vacations on hold, many buyers used those extra funds to buy a high-end pistol. When we think of high-end pistols, Kimber America comes to mind and we got a few minutes of their time for an update. Like most other companies, Kimber is increasing production.

However, instead of just adding shifts, the company is expanding its second location in Troy, Al. To get more products out, more than 200 new employees were hired to span not only the production lines, but the engineering side of the company as well. This will ensure that we continue to see new designs for 2021 and the years to come.

While Kimber offers quite a larger variety of handguns, our contact has informed us that the high-performance models such as the Rapide and Super Jägare have garnered the most interest and they are doing all they can to get more of those out to dealers. The next highest demand goes to the concealed carry handguns from the Micro 9 category, these are getting a bump in production as well.

Taurus USA

The pandemic also reduced many folks' available funds, particularly for a first gun. Not having a ton of cash on hand doesn’t mean that you can’t get a quality firearm, and those looking to maximize their value often turn to Taurus USA. If you only have $300 and want to get every dollars’ worth, it’s hard to do better than one of its defensive pistols.

Taurus exclaimed that models like the G3 and G3c have been highly sought after since early 2020 and continue to generate sharp demand at the time of this writing. Production has been ramped up to full capacity with zero downtime in both the company's US and Brazilian factories. Research and development for new products has not been affected, as the engineers are still hard at work creating designs like the new TX-22 Competition pistol, which is sure to be a hit as most folks are doing all they can to save their center-fire ammunition.

Ruger

I wrapped my investigation up by tapping one of the best-rounded companies in the industry, Ruger. From single-action revolvers to AR-15s, this company has arguably the most extensive lineup of any firearms manufacturer. I reached out to see if they planned on keeping all of these items available in the upcoming years and, to my surprise, our contact answered in the affirmative.

Ruger’s policy is NOT to stop the production of any one product to help meet the demand of another. Instead, the company has hired extra personnel and paid overtime to ensure that each line produces as many guns as possible. At the time of our interview, they relayed that every single product is selling out, so it doesn’t make sense to change things up.

The only factory changes were those done to increase social distancing and meet CDC guidelines. As for roadblocks, the only one they had to speak to was personnel. Ruger has hired and is continuing to hire workers for nearly every position, so if you are looking to break into the firearm industry, now just might be the time to touch-up your resume.

Overall, none of the companies were willing to gamble on when things might “return to normal,” largely because demand is unprecedented and therefore unpredictable. Any estimate would be based on demand going back to a reasonable level, and unfortunately, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic is keeping the pressure on.

We all must remain patient and optimistic that our favorite firearms will be available soon enough at our local gun shops. In the meantime, with gun-control measures being discussed in Washington, we should remain as active as possible to ensure that we will still be able to own them when they return to the shelves.

Armed Shoplifter Stopped By Concealed Carrier and a Good Samaritan

Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:05:06 GMT

Armed Shoplifter Stopped By Concealed Carrier and a Good Samaritan by Luke McCoy

A Beech Grove Walmart was the scene of a resisting shoplifter being fired at by a licensed gun owner and then stopped by a Good Samaritan while fleeing.

The shoplifter, who went on to draw and point a gun at the store’s security guard after escaping arrest. As the suspect was pointing a gun at the security guard, a licensed gun owner saw what was taking place and fired at him. None of the shots hit the suspect and as he fled through the parking lot, another Good Samaritan tackled him. The resisting shoplifter and the store’s loss prevention officer were treated for minor injuries. The security officer, who is also a park ranger, suffered no injuries.

Walmart does not permit open carry, so it is safe to assume the licensed gun owner was carrying concealed. Samone Burris, an Indianapolis Metro Police officer, thanked the licensed gun owner as well as the parking lot civilian for helping stop the suspect.

“IT IS PHENOMENAL THAT WHEN WE NEEDED THE COMMUNITY THEY WERE RIGHT THERE WITH US,” BURRIS SAID.

The bravery of all things should of course be honored to both heroes at the scene.

In regards to self-defense, one should always be wary of basic firearm safety: know your target and who/what is beyond the said target. It is not exactly known the measure of how much the licensed gun holder missed his mark(s) on the suspect. Although the gun-wielding suspect posed a potential risk to others after not being immediately disarmed, thankfully the shots were enough to deter the suspect, along with the Good Samaritan.

All things considered, the public presence of a licensed CCW holder should not be overlooked. One can only imagine what could’ve happened had the suspect not been deterred by an armed citizen.

Supreme Court to take up right to carry gun for self-defense

Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:57:28 GMT

Supreme Court to take up right to carry gun for self-defense

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal to expand gun rights in the United States in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The case marks the court’s first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Coney Barrett came on board in October, making a 6-3 conservative majority.

The justices said Monday they will review a lower-court ruling that upheld New York’s restrictive gun permit law. The court’s decision to take on the case follows mass shootings in recent weeks in Indiana, Georgia, Colorado and California and comes amid congressional efforts to tighten gun laws. President Joe Biden also has announced several executive actions to combat what he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment” of gun violence in America.

The case is especially significant during the coronavirus pandemic, said Eric Tirschwell, the legal director of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Gun violence has only worsened during the pandemic, and a ruling that opened the door to weakening our gun laws could make it even harder for cities and states to grapple with this public health crisis,” Tirschwell said.

The court had turned down review of the issue in June, before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

New York is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. The others are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In the rest of the country, gun owners have little trouble legally carrying their weapons when they go out.

Paul Clement, representing challengers to New York’s permit law, said the court should use the case to settle the issue once and for all. “Thus, the nation is split, with the Second Amendment alive and well in the vast middle of the nation, and those same rights disregarded near the coasts,” Clement wrote on behalf of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two New York residents.

Calling on the court to reject the appeal, the state said its law promotes public safety and crime reduction and neither bans people from carrying guns nor allows everyone to do so.

Federal courts have largely upheld the permit limits. Last month an 11-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s permit regulations in an opinion written by a conservative judge, Jay Bybee.

“Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square,” Bybee wrote in a 7-4 decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue of carrying a gun for self-defense has been seen for several years as the next major step for gun rights at the Supreme Court, following decisions in 2008 and 2010 that established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

In June, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, complained that rather than take on the constitutional issue, “the Court simply looks the other way.”

But Barrett has a more expansive view of gun rights than Ginsburg. She wrote a dissent in 2019, when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago, that argued that a conviction for a nonviolent felony — in this case, mail fraud — shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from owning a gun.

She said that her colleagues in the majority were treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

North country Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R. - 21st District) issued the following statement:

“My strong and consistent record of standing up for the Second Amendment Rights of my constituents in the North Country has proudly earned me an A+ rating from the NRA, the highest of any member of the New York Delegation. I cannot overstate the importance of the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case for law-abiding gun owners in New York State, especially as Governor Cuomo, President Biden, and Democrats across the country continue to impose strict, unconstitutional gun control measures. The Constitution is clear – the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am hopeful the Supreme Court will rule in favor of that constitutional truth and protect the right of law-abiding New Yorkers and Americans to defend themselves, regardless of where they are.”

Governor Andrew Cuomo released this statement:

“In light of the Supreme Court’s announcement this morning that they will take up New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett in the next term, it’s worth remembering that New York’s nation-leading gun violence prevention laws, including the SAFE Act we passed after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, haven’t stopped anyone with a legal right to buy, possess, or use a gun from doing so - but they have made us the safest big state in the country.

“This NRA-backed case is a massive threat to that security. Imagine someone carrying a gun through Times Square, onto the subway, or to a tailgate outside of a Bills game - the NRA’s goal here is to shift the onus onto regular New Yorkers, police officers, security guards, and first responders to determine whether an armed individual poses a threat or is simply carrying for self-defense. The streets of New York are not the O.K. Corral, and the NRA’s dream of a society where everyone is terrified of each other and armed to the teeth is abhorrent to our values.

“While we have to respect the role of the courts, we don’t have to play along with the NRA’s strategy of using them to roll back strong gun safety laws passed by individual states, turning the lowest common denominator into the law of the land. We can keep all Americans safe through federal action. Changing the law to require a background check on all gun sales, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, implement Red Flag orders, and close the Charleston loophole is overwhelmingly popular, constitutional, and effective. We’ve proven as much in New York State, and with President Biden in the White House, Congress now has an opportunity to do the same. I urge them to take it.”

Court to take up major gun-rights case

Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:39:07 GMT

Court to take up major gun-rights case by Amy Howe, on Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50 am

Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

The announcement came just one day short of one year after the court’s ruling in a different challenge brought by the same gun-rights group. That case involved New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban before the case reached the Supreme Court, a majority of the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims were moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case should return to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun-rights rulings, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh urged the court to “address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari” then pending before the justices, several of which involved the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.

Shortly after issuing that decision, the court distributed for consideration at its May 1, 2020, conference 10 gun rights cases that they had put on hold while the New York City case was pending. The justices considered those cases at six consecutive conferences before finally denying review in all 10 of them in June.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up at least one of the 10 cases. In an opinion that was joined in part by Kavanaugh, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court would likely grant review if a law required someone to show a good reason before exercising her right to free speech or to seek an abortion. However, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court had opted to “simply look[] the other way” when “faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

There is no way to know why the justices turned down the petitions for review last year. Commentators speculated that some conservative justices may not have been confident that Chief Justice John Roberts would provide a fifth vote to expand gun rights. However, since then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose vote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests that she might take a broader approach to the Second Amendment.

State Senator Tom O'Mara will be speaking at the May 8th. Members' meeting

Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:55:13 GMT

2021 SCOPE Member Meeting

At SCOPE’s Members’ Meeting on May 8th, State Senator Tom O'Mara will be speaking. Mr. O'Mara represents New York’s 58^th Senate District which encompasses all of Chemung, Schuyler, Yates and Steuben Counties and part of Tompkins County.

As previously announced, Congressman and Governor candidate Lee Zeldin will also be speaking.

Other potential speakers will be announced when confirmed.

Our 2021 Annual SCOPE Member Meeting will be held on
Saturday, May 8th @ 10:00 AM

Montour Falls Moose Lodge
2096 State Route 14 Montour Falls, NY 14865

The meeting is open to all SCOPE members in good standing.
You must RSVP

Lunch will be provided
*COVID Restrictions require masks inside the Lodge*

CLICK HERE FOR RSVP FORM

Please mail your RSVP: Postmarked NO later than April 24th: TO
S.C.O.P.E. Member Meeting
P.O. Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

Congressman Lee Zeldin will be speaking at the May 8th. members' meeting

Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:32:08 GMT

2021 SCOPE Member Meeting

Members Meeting Special Announcement

At SCOPE’s Members’ Meeting, Congressman Lee Zeldin will be speaking. Mr. Zeldin represents
New York’s 1^st Congressional District on Long Island and is a potential Republican candidate for Governor in 2022.

Other potential speakers will be announced when confirmed

Saturday, May 8th @ 10:00 AM

at the

Montour Falls Moose Lodge 2096 State Route 14 Montour Falls, NY 1

The meeting is open to all SCOPE members in good standing.
You must RSVP

Lunch will be provided

*COVID Restrictions require masks inside the Lodge*

CLICK HERE FOR RSVP FORM

Please mail your RSVP:

The Shot Heard Around the World

Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:54:32 GMT

" The Shot Heard Around the World" On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began in the villages of Lexington and Concord near Boston, Massachusetts.

The previous night saw 700 British troops march out of Boston with orders to seize any colonial weapons they might find. By dawn the next morning they had reached Lexington, where they found about 75 American minutemen waiting for them on the village green. “Don’t fire unless fired upon,” Captain Jonas Parker ordered the Patriots, “but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!”

The British commander ordered the Americans to lay down their arms. “You damned rebels, disperse!” he cried, and the outnumbered colonists grudgingly began to drift away. Suddenly someone fired a shot – no one knows who – and the surprised British ranks let loose a volley. A few seconds later, eight dead and ten wounded minutemen lay on Lexington Green.

The redcoats continued up the road to Concord, where hundreds of Americans had gathered. Another small battle ensued before the British decided that it was time to return to Boston.

Then the real fighting began. The road back to Lexington became a nightmarish gauntlet of deadly fire for the redcoats as the Americans lay in ambush behind trees, rocks, and woodpiles. The helpless British columns endured the sniping nearly all the way back to Boston.

When the day was over, about 250 of the king’s men had been killed or wounded. The colonists lost about 90. News of the conflict caused militiamen all over New England to shoulder their muskets and tramp toward Boston. The struggle for independence had begun. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his famous poem “Concord Hymn,” the Americans had “fired the shot heard ’round the world.”

The American Patriot's Almanac" by Bill Bennett & E.T. Cribb

POLL REAFFIRMS THAT OVER 70% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS

Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:57:44 GMT

New poll demonstrates that Americans are not divided on “party lines” on gun issues.

POLL REAFFIRMS THAT OVER 70% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS, APRIL 15, 2021 ROB PINCUS | 2AO EVP

Second Amendment Foundation commissioned this research and, not surprisingly, it confirms that most Americans respect and want to protect individual gun rights.

“Based on these survey results, anti-gunners, including Joe Biden, should cool their zeal for passing new legislation,” Alan M Gottlieb observed. “Over 72 percent of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms. Over 73 percent agree the Second Amendment is one of our most important and cherished rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. And more than 58 percent say they are likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports the right to keep and bear arms.”

You can learn more about the Poll and what it tells us here in this article at the Outdoor Wire.
Abolishing the Second Amendment isn’t a viable option.

There is a false narrative being spread by fear mongerers on both sides of the “gun debate” in this country. The truth is that most people want our communities to be safer AND respect individual liberties. Most gun owners have firearms expressly to be safer and most of us exercise our rights responsibly. There is no “culture war” over protecting our neighborhoods and loved ones.

There is a reason that the gun grabbers don’t go after the Second Amendment directly: they know they could never abolish it. The majority of Americans, including people from every political party, race, creed, lifestyle and economic bracket, support the individual right to keep and bear arms for protection… as they should. The diversity amongst gun owners can be seen in every facet of firearms related activities, from competition shooting to training for armed defense and from hunting to gun rights advocacy.

This poll, which you can see in its entirety HERE, reaffirms a position that 2AO has always held: Americans generally cherish individual freedoms and are not anti-gun. There isn’t a significant portion of our population that wants to take away guns or abolish the Second Amendment. We believe that gun control should be removed from the agenda of any major American Political Party. Surely, there are many who “support gun rights” who are not absolutists. These fellow citizens who in the middle ground on guns are our allies in the fight to protect our right to keep and bear arms. This is why we believe that grassroots advocacy is incredibly important. With continued demonstration that the gun community has a sincere dedication to reducing negative outcomes involving firearms, reasoned dialogue, outreach and educational advocacy, we will continue to regain lost rights and bring more people into the community.

-Rob Pincus, -Executive Vice President, 2AO

“I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive”

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:21:50 GMT

One day, as Marine Corporal Jason Dunham and his buddies swapped talk in their barracks in Iraq, the conversation turned to the best way to survive a hand grenade attack. The corporal suggested covering a grenade with a Kevlar helmet. “I’ll bet a Kevlar would stop it,” he said.

Dunham, raised in the small town of Scio, New York, was a 22-year-old with a natural gift for leadership. He’d been a star athlete, setting a Scio Central School baseball record for highest batting average. Now a rifle squad leader, he’d extended his enlistment to stay with his comrades in Iraq.

On April 14, 2004, Dunham was on his way to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in western Iraq when an insurgent leaped from a car and attacked him. As two Marines rushed to help wrestle the man to the ground, they heard Dunham yell, “No, no, no – watch his hand!” Before they realized what was happening, Dunham threw his helmet and his own body over a live enemy grenade.

The sacrifice helped contain the blast but left Dunham mortally wounded. He died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

In January 2007 President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Jason Dunham. “Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men, and showed the world what it means to be a Marine,” the president said. He was the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq.

Journalist Michael Phillips, author of The Gift of Valor, wrote that shortly before leaving for the Persian Gulf, Dunham told friends of his plans to extend his enlistment. “You’re crazy for extending,” a fellow Marine had said. “Why?”

“I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive,” Jason Dunham answered.

Copied from Bill Bennett's "The American Patriot Daily Almanac"
Click here for the original web version

Carrying Guns in Public Is Not a Constitutional Right, Ninth Circuit Rules

Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:37:18 GMT

Carrying Guns in Public Is Not a Constitutional Right, Ninth Circuit Rules

And so now it becomes "ripe for Supreme Court review."

The majority of an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry firearms outside the home.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Americans have no right to carry guns in public, a divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday, reversing a prior Ninth Circuit decision that struck down a Hawaii firearm restriction as unconstitutional.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.

“The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.

In July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

“Heller found that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is not a right to ‘carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Bybee wrote for the majority.

Young had argued that Hawaii’s 169-year-old law impermissibly limited open-carry permits to security guards, as applied in regulations adopted by the County of Hawaii in 1997.

During oral arguments last September, a lawyer representing the Aloha State said the law does not limit open-carry licenses to security guards. He cited the Hawaii Attorney General’s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.”

The state says the attorney general’s 2018 guidance overrides the county’s 1997 regulation that ostensibly limits open-carry licenses to security guards.

Despite that argument, O’Scannlain found the fact that the 1997 regulation remains “on the books” and that Hawaii has never granted permits to a non-security guard civilian shows the state has been unconstitutionally restricting Second Amendment rights.

“In the County of Hawaii, the historical dearth of open-carry permits for private citizens is no mere ‘pattern or practice,’” O’Scannlain wrote. “It is a matter of official policy.”

In a concurring dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, argued the panel should have remanded the case back to district court to determine if Young could plausibly allege Hawaii’s law has been applied in an unconstitutional manner.

The failure to do so could have widespread consequences for people suing to protect their constitutional rights, he said, especially for litigants representing themselves without an attorney. Young originally filed his lawsuit pro se but was represented by lawyers in his appeal.

“It will preclude a host of future as-applied constitutional challenges under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments previously recognized by this court — especially for pro se civil rights plaintiffs,” Nelson wrote.

By upholding state laws that restrict carrying guns in public, the Ninth Circuit joined three other circuit courts that have issued similar rulings: the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit and Seventh Circuit have struck down state laws that ban carrying guns in public. That makes the dispute ripe for Supreme Court review.

Although some circuit courts have upheld restrictions on carrying guns in public, Young’s attorney Alan Beck, of San Diego, argued that no court has gone as far as the Ninth Circuit did in its en banc opinion Wednesday.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which finds the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all, contradicts the decisions of every federal circuit court in the country that has ruled on this issue,” Beck said in an email. “We will be seeking Supreme Court review in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

Bill Clinton appointees William Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas joined Bybee in the majority. Circuit Judges Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, also sided with the majority.

Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan, both George W. Bush appointees, joined O’Scannlain and Nelson in the dissent.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Palmetto State Armory in Greenville Thursday to show his support for the Second Amendment.

Sun, 04 Apr 2021 02:55:30 GMT

GREENVILLE, S.C. (WYFF) - U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Palmetto State Armory in Greenville Thursday to show his support for the Second Amendment.

Graham fired off some practice rounds at the shooting range’s indoor range with an AR-style rifle, which would be made illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban.

Graham was flanked by Mark Oliva, Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson.

“In South Carolina, we take seriously the right to bear arms, but also the responsibility that comes from owning a weapon,” Graham said at the start of his remarks.

He said the background check bills recently passed by the U.S. House go too far, citing gun sales.

The bills, passed in early March, require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and allow an expanded 10-day review for gun purchases. Similar bills were passed by the House in 2019, shortly after Democrats won the majority, but stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate for the next two years.

Graham said there is room for compromise.

“We can do something with the gun show loopholes, I think, but if you transfer a weapon to a family member, I’m not really sure how that is affected in the House bill,” Graham said.

He also said he would oppose an assault weapons ban backed by President Joe Biden if it is brought to the Senate floor, but looks forward to the debate.

“Let’s bring them all to the floor,” he said. “Let’s vote. Maybe we can find some compromise, but I want to put every United States Senator on the record as to where they stand on the Second Amendment. I think the voters in 2022 need to understand this.”

Graham told the stories of three cases that have happened in South Carolina so far this year where citizens have had to use guns to defend themselves.

An 80-year old veteran in Aiken, whose house was being broken into and his wife was being stabbed, shot the intruder, Graham said.
A home break-in in Iva ended with the homeowner shooting the intruder, he said.
At a barbershop in Columbia, one of the barbers used a lawfully owned gun to stop the robbery, according to Graham.

“One of the things about our Constitution is that we understood early on that if you live in a dictatorship, or in places where the government runs everything, the first thing they take away from you is not just your speech but your ability to defend yourself,” Graham said. “That’s why the Second Amendment exists. The ability to own a gun responsibly is a constitutional right in America, and here’s what I would say: we need that right today, as much as any other time in American history.”

When asked if his comments about the need for guns for self-protection were fearmongering, Graham defended himself with what he called the president’s own words.

“Well, Joe Biden told Jill, ‘If you find yourself in a bad spot, take the rifle and scare people away,’” Graham said.

“We live in a world where law and order are breaking down all too often,” Graham said. “The bottom line is self-defense is one of the fundamental rights associated with the Second Amendment. Most people in South Carolina who buy a gun will tell you one of the reasons they have a weapon is for self-defense purposes.”

He said the “liberals” who are talking about taking people’s guns away, already have their own protection.

“It’s the liberal elite who are able to live in a security environment the average person can’t have. All the people talking about taking your guns away have armed guards around them. So I’m here to tell you, look in South Carolina this year, where three people, senior citizens, mostly, if they had not had a gun they would have been killed. Women would be raped and people would be killed time and time again without the ability to defend themselves. This is not fear-mongering. This actually happens,” Graham said.

It Failed Before: We Have 10 Years of Data on How an Assault Weapons Ban Works in America

Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:11:27 GMT

It Failed Before: We Have 10 Years of Data on How an Assault Weapons Ban Works in America by Dan Zimmerman, The Truth About Guns

Why so many mass shootings with AR-15s? Well first off, I care about all mass killings, not just the subset of shootings. I care about the Nice, France truck attack (86 killed), and the GermanWings suicide attack (149 killed), the Berlin Christmas Market Truck Attack (12 killed, 56 injured), the Manchester Stadium bombing (22 killed, 1000+ injured), the Boston Marathon bombing (3 killed 250+ injured), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 killed), and the Boise stabbing (3yo killed, 8 injured including 5 kids), and the Kunming stabbing (27 killed), and I care about shootings that occur even in places with strict regulations like the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, the Oslo Norway attack, and the Thalys train attack.

Even with that context, it is still worth understanding why AR-15s come up so much in US mass shootings: they’re popular. And even if you banned them all today, they would still be popular… there are 10ish million in circulation. If someone wants more than a handgun, and less than a big, heavy rifle, they are probably going to grab an AR-15 variant.

So what if we had a ban? It turns out, we already tried that. From 1994-2004, we had an “Assault Weapons Ban” which specifically targeted the AR-15 by trying to call out AR-15ie features like “a grip” a “flash hider” and a “bayonet lug.” Why do I need a bayonet lug? I don’t know, but can you explain to me why you need to take it away?

So we have 10 years of data on how a national ban works. How do you think it worked? It is tough to prove causation, but I haven’t seen anyone even make a reasonably believable case it did anything at all.

LAW & ORDER: Mental Health vs. just Police Response

Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:44:34 GMT

Mental Health vs. just Police Response

Is there a clean line between when a a call comes in for a behavioral health crisis, or when a situation in which police are/should be dispatched?

Times of Wayne County, LAW & ORDER

This is a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ question, depending on the circumstances.

The City of Rochester Police Department has made national news three times over the past year in cases where police actions have been deemed unsuitable for the conditions, yet rules were allegedly followed. In each case the bad publicity, civilian complaints, protests and potential lawsuits have all led to a negative picture for police.

On Saturday (3/20) at 7:20 a.m. the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office responded to a call of a psychological disorder at the Woodland Commons Apartment Complex on Route 31 in the Town of Macedon.

Upon arrival, officers found the 43 year old man barricaded in his apartment in an apparent intoxicated and agitated state threatening to do harm to himself and officers.

Due to previous contacts with the subject, additional help was requested to contain the subject and protect the large number of residents that were unable to leave the facility.

After negotiating for 8 hours, the man was taken into custody, peacefully and taken to Rochester Strong Hospital for evaluation and treatment of self inflicted injuries.

The difference between a situation out of control in the City of Rochester, or with the response in Wayne County, depends on preparation, anticipation and training for all those who respond.

The Wayne County Mental Health Department, under Director James (Jim) Haitz, launched an ambitious ‘Intervention Team’ in September of 2018, with trained professionals and mobile units on the ready for mental health responses.

Under a pilot program the Mental Health Department has also added Ipads for some sheriff’s officers allowing for on scene assessments with on duty mental health technicians, making it possible to discern situations. This is when an officer, instead of beginning an arrest, or legal matter to be turned over to the ‘Open Access’ health officials.
It is then determined whether a mental health person is dispatched to the scene, brought to the ‘Open Access’ facility, or an appointment should be made for the person under distress.

According to Chief Deputy Rob Milby, Sheriff Barry Virts saw the handwriting on the wall as police reform and questions began arising over when to divert calls to mental health.

“Sheriff Virts decided to be ahead of the curve and began progressive training for all officers,” said Milby.
Classes in anti-bias, situation de-escalation, mental health overview, diversity training were all part of professional standards, accreditation for all officers. This is in addition to the 1000 hours of training before an officer hits the road.

During the covid crisis, the ‘Open Access’ and ‘Mobile Team’ response was cut back to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. With more hires in the near future Haitz hopes to move to a 24 hour/seven days a week availability.
So, why are some city and municipalities not yet onboard with similar programs?

“We don’t like to toot our own horn” said Haitz. But his agency saw what was coming and decided to be more progressive. He added that through the existing programs and that of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, and local municipal police agencies, bad and sensational outcomes are avoided.

Hiring the right staff, a mix of para professionals and peer staff that understand mental situations is paramount.
911 staff are being trained to distinguish between police involvement, or directing calls for mental health evaluation.
Did the man have a gun as he professed early on? What weapons did he actually have. A few large knives were thrown out a window during the wind down.

A Saturday’s situation in Macedon, Jim Haitz was contacted by police at home and he responded in person, supplying ‘intel’ on the barricaded man and adding to the direct line communications. Productive negotiations with the man ended the standoff. He came out, was handcuffed and taken to Strong Memorial Hospital by ambulance for a myriad of possible solutions, including self inflicted injuries.

“It was a perfect outcome,” proclaimed Haitz. “Police were calm and there was no panic,” he added.

Other municipalities across the nation are, or have instituted similar guidelines for behavioral crisis situations. The Wayne County Police/Mental Health match up was begun with a $4 million dollar grants, along with County participation and some insurance billing when available.

What about the danger of sending mental health officials into a situation that may escalate?

Haitz indicated that is where the connection with police agencies is vital at determining the right agencies and people. He added that in the future, for extra protection, mental health responders may need bullet proof vests for added security.

Why Identity Politics Hurts Women Gun Owners

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:53:53 GMT

Why Identity Politics Hurts Women Gun Owners
by Wendy Lafever, Executive Director of NRA Women

Women who own guns and support the Second Amendment represent a voting bloc that frightens anti-gun activists. That’s because they’ve spent decades (erroneously) thinking of women as a gun-hating hivemind. It’s an outgrowth of the old, sexist attitude that guns are for men, and that women resent both the guns and the men. Every woman who buys a gun, takes a friend to the range, or posts pro-gun messages on social media is a woman proving that cultural myth wrong.

If you think of the Second Amendment as bedrock—and we here at the NRA sure do—you can think of identity politics as representing three major fault lines in that bedrock. Let’s get the first one out of the way: There is a cultural myth that Second Amendment supporters are racist. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

Some gun owners have firearms in their home strictly for hunting purposes. Some gun owners couldn’t be less interested in hunting if you paid them. Some gun owners keep their firearms carefully displayed in cases and rarely take them out, while others leave a large pile of brass next to them at the range every week. Any or all of the above are valid ways to be a gun-owning American woman, but the anti-gunners would prefer you not think of it that way. Why?

The final way in which anti-gunners have tried, are trying, and will try to divide our “house” is by bringing up irrelevant topics. Or, more precisely, they will try to introduce topics that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand—the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

There are many threats facing women gun owners, but the most worrisome one isn’t “facing” us at all; it’s between us. That threat is identity politics, which is at root nothing more than the idea that everyone who shares an identity should think (and vote) the same way. It’s a highly offensive concept if you spend any time thinking about it, but somehow it’s still the wedge that anti-gun activists use to try to fracture the pro-gun movement. We must not let them; the Second Amendment is our “house,” and as a very famous man once said, a house divided cannot stand.

Why We Scare Them

What’s more, every woman who does any or all of those things empowers every other woman who sees or hears her doing it. (It’s one of the compelling reasons that some of us choose to disclose that we’re gun owners.) That’s why, right now, anti-2A forces are doing their best to split us apart … not by what we believe, but by who we are.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Race

It wasn’t true when the NRA was founded by two Union generals who were alarmed by the lack of marksmanship displayed by Union forces. It isn’t true today. It will never be true. In fact, it’s much easier to make the argument the other way. The very first gun-control laws were part of the extremely racist “Jim Crow” laws, and they sought to make gun ownership nearly impossible for the recently freed slaves. Nor did the phenomenon stop in the 19th century; gun-control laws continue to unfairly target people of color well into the 21st Century. Just a few years ago, the NRA partnered with Josephine Byrd to reverse a Delaware ban on gun ownership for the residents of Delaware public housing ... a ban that left people of color defenseless in some of Delaware's most crime-ridden areas.

The fact of the matter is as follows: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms knows no color, because it is a right that every human being is born with.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Interest

Well, the people who would like to legislate our freedom away are hoping that they can get some of us to vote against the freedoms of others. They’re hoping that we won’t mind a ban on modern sporting rifles as long as they leave our hunting guns alone. They’re hoping that we won’t mind a ban on Sunday hunting as long as they leave our defensive pistols alone. They’re hoping we won’t mind a ban on 20-round magazines as long as they leave our revolvers alone. Let’s make sure that those hopes go unfulfilled.

Don’t Let Them Divide Us by Irrelevant Topics

The concept that the Bill of Rights says what it means, and means what it says, when it says “shall not be infringed” is not inherently partisan. You do not have to subscribe to or support any other ideologies to support the Second Amendment. Anyone who tells you anything different is doing their best to change your mind by changing the subject. And although it may not feel like good news in the moment, it is … because when the anti-gunners try to split us along identity politics lines, it’s because they know that’s the only way to beat us.

Becerra Admits California Gun Registration A Failure by Tom Knighton

Sat, 20 Mar 2021 00:02:19 GMT

Becerra Admits California Gun Registration A Failure by Tom Knighton

Gun registration is a terrible idea. While I get that many anti-gunners really somehow think registering firearms will somehow magically make criminals unlikely to use a gun, it just doesn’t work that way.

About all gun registration is really good for is to know where the armed law-abiding citizens live so you can make them disarmed law-abiding citizens at some point. That’s pretty much it.

Well, California decided to register so-called assault weapons. It went about as well as you might imagine. It’s so bad that California’s now-former attorney general even admitted it was a failure.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office quietly signed a settlement agreement in federal court admitting his agency’s gun-registration website was so poorly designed that potentially thousands of Californians were unable to register their assault weapons and comply with state law.

Under the terms of the settlement filed Wednesday in U.S. Eastern District Court in Sacramento, the state Department of Justice is required to notify each district attorney and law enforcement agency to put on hold “all pending investigations and prosecutions” for those suspected of failing to register their assault weapons.

The settlement agreement is a major setback for one of California’s signature pieces of gun control legislation. It comes 11 months after a federal judge said the state’s newly implemented online ammunition background-check program was so glitchy that tens of thousands of otherwise legal firearms owners were barred from buying ammunition — in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a federal judge, was filed the day before the U.S. Senate voted to approve Becerra as the new secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Agency. The Senate approved his nomination 50-49 on Thursday, with only one Republican voting to confirm him.

The problems with California’s gun-registration website didn’t come up during the confirmation hearings, but critics say they should have. Becerra is now running an agency responsible for monitoring the nation’s healthcare system and tracking its healthcare data.

Yeah, it really should have come up during the confirmation, but it didn’t so here we are.

Look, I get that not everyone agrees with me about registration, but maybe we can all agree how wrong it is to try and prosecute people for failing to register a firearm when the website that they were supposed to use to register them simply didn’t work. How many made good faith attempts to try and register before the deadline and couldn’t because the site was so jacked up?

Then again, as noted, California also barred people from buying ammunition for no good reason, so there was that as well.

And yet, California is often held up by the left as an example of how every state should be. They want us all to follow California’s lead, especially on guns. This despite Becerra’s admission that his department completely screwed the pooch on registration.

The best possible solution is for the state to scrap registration entirely, though we all know that’s unlikely to happen. It’s a shame, too, because it won’t do anything except empower the left to take those guns if the time comes.

State Police lose track of rifle, asking public for help

Thu, 18 Mar 2021 22:05:54 GMT

State Police lose track of rifle, asking public for help by WRGB STAFF

Investigators are not saying how the rifle was determined to be missing, and confirm there is an ongoing internal investigation. (CNYCentral File Photo)

CHESTERTOWN, NY (WRGB) — State Police are looking to the public to help locate a missing rifle.

Investigators are not saying how the rifle was determined to be missing, and confirm there is an ongoing internal investigation.

The Rock River AR-15 rifle serial # CM203155 with optic # K3319796 was in a black nylon carrying case.

Police say it was last seen on Tuesday, March 16th along state Route 9 in the vicinity of Riverside Drive in the town of Chestertown.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the rifle is asked to call the State Police at (518)-583-7000, say police.

STEFANIK INTRODUCES SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:21:43 GMT

STEFANIK INTRODUCES SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

March 9, 2021 Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA). If signed into law, this bill would override unconstitutional provisions in the SAFE Act that prohibit law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning legal firearms. This bill would ensure that states cannot ban the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law. Congresswoman Stefanik issued the following statement:

“New York’s SAFE Act is unconstitutional and a clear infringement on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act will not only void the SAFE Act and award New Yorkers with any damages caused by this unconstitutional law – it would prevent other states across the country from further limiting and banning constitutionally protected firearms. I am introducing this bill at a critical time, as Democrats and the White House are pushing Far-Left gun control measures including gun bans.”

“The framers of the Constitution made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ This legislation reinforces this founding principle for law-abiding Americans living in anti-gun states or local jurisdictions. We thank Representative Stefanik and her colleagues for their leadership on this important issue,” said Jason Ouimet, Executive Director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

Congresswoman Stefanik is joined by Representatives Jacobs (NY-27), Tenney (NY-22), Zeldin (NY-1), Reed (NY-23), LaMalfa (CA-1), and Duncan (SC-3).

Does Constitutional Carry Imply Reciprocity with Other States Permits?

Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:23:30 GMT

Does Constitutional Carry Imply Reciprocity with Other States Permits?

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Constitutional Carry has become a mainstream movement. The term means a state’s laws concerning the carry of weapons approximates the state of the law when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time, no permits were required to carry weapons, openly or concealed.

17 states have restored a reasonable facsimile of Constitutional Carry. Vermont always had Constitutional Carry. Serious efforts are underway to restore Constitutional Carry in three other states in 2021, with various states of possibility in twenty other states.

Given the coming predominance of Constitutional Carry, what impact does it have on those with permits? How do Constitutional Carry states treat reciprocity issues?

Are permits still useful with Constitutional Carry?

Reciprocity is generally not an issue in Constitutional Carry states, because carrying a loaded handgun, openly or concealed is legal in most public places, most of the time.

However, the answers are not as simple and clear-cut as first they might appear. Some states have minor cut-outs which allow carrying with permits in some places where carry without permits is prohibited. For example, in Arizona, a permit is required to legally carry in a bar. While Michigan is not a Constitutional Carry state yet, a permit is required to openly carry in a school, where concealed carry is prohibited.

There are three Constitutional Carry states which limit Constitutional Carry to residents.

Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming limit Constitutional Carry to residents only. This is a highly controversial and dubious distinction. It is likely to be challenged under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment. No court cases under the equal protection clause are in progress, regarding Constitutional Carry, to my knowledge.

Permits from most states are recognized by most states, making a concealed carry permit a useful item when a person exercises their Second Amendment rights across state lines.

All 17 states which had a permit system in place before they restored Constitutional Carry have kept their permit system in place for those who find a permit useful for a number of reasons.

Vermont does not issue a permit. States cannot honor a permit that does not exist.

Of the three Constitutional Carry states which claim to limit Constitutional Carry to residents, Idaho honors permits from all other states.

North Dakota recognizes permits from 37 states. Wyoming Recognizes permits from 40 states.

State law and reciprocity status are constantly changing. The following interpretations of reciprocity were obtained from online sources, and are subject to change and error. It is recommended that persons traveling to or through other states check their reciprocity law online before traveling.

The author is not a lawyer. This article is not legal advice.

Here is the reciprocity status for the 18 Constitutional Carry states:

Alaska – honors all other states permits.
Arizona – honors enhanced Resident and Non-Resident permits from Idaho, and all permits from all other states.
Arkansas – honors all other states permits.
Idaho – honors all other states permits.
Kansas – honors all other states permits.
Kentucky – honors all other states permits.
Maine – honors resident permits from 27 states. Those are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Maine does not honor permits from 21 states. They are:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.

Mississippi – honors all other states permits.
Missouri – honors all other states permits.
Montana – honors most other states permits. Does not honor permits from:

Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

New Hampshire – honors permits from 28 states. Those are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

New Hampshire does not honor permits from 20 states. They are:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin.

North Dakota – honors permits from most states. North Dakota does not honor permits from 10 states. They are:

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, or Rhode Island.

Oklahoma – honors all other states permits.
South Dakota – honors all other states permits.
Utah – honors all other states permits.
West Virginia – honors permits from most states. West Virginia does not honor permits from:

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, or Rhode Island or Washington.

Wyoming – honors permits from most states. Wyoming does not honor permits from 13 states. They are:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, or Washington.

Vermont – Does not have a permit system, and does not honor permits from any other state.

As a Constitutional Carry state, it is not against the law to carry a weapon, openly or concealed, if there is no intent to commit a crime.

Report: House of Representatives to Vote on Two Gun Control Bills!

Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:09:30 GMT

Report: House of Representatives to Vote on Two Gun Control Bills!

According to reports from Capitol Hill, the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote on two gun control bills as early as next week. The first bill, so-called “universal” background check legislation, would criminalize the private transfer of firearms. The second bill, sometimes inaccurately described as legislation to close the “Charleston loophole,” would undermine the Second Amendment right by permitting the federal government to delay a firearm transfer indefinitely without proof that the transferee is prohibited from possessing firearms.

SUPPORT NRA-ILA, TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021

The 2021 House gun control agenda promises to include H.R. 8, introduced by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), which purports to be a so-called “universal” background check bill. This legislation would make it a crime, subject to certain limited exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties.

The pandemic exposed dangers of private transfer restrictions

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic some jurisdictions that had criminalized the private transfer of firearms also shut down access to gun stores or their state criminal background check system. This lethal combination of misguided policies made it impossible for millions of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by acquiring, or even borrowing or lending, firearms during the crisis.

“Universal” background checks do not stop criminals

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 75 percent of criminals in state and federal state prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.

Criminals also defeat the background check system by getting guns through straw purchasers. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent....”

In 2013, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice researched so-called “universal” background checks and determined that they would not be effective without additional draconian firearm restrictions and efforts to combat straw purchasing.

In a 2018 study, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

There is no “gun show loophole” or “online sales loophole”

Federal law requires all firearm dealers to be licensed and to initiate a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check before transferring a firearm to a non-dealer, regardless of where the transfer takes place.

There is no overwhelming support for “universal” background checks

Gun control supporters claim that 92 percent of Americans support background checks on all firearm transfers. However, in November 2014, a background check ballot initiative in Washington was approved by only 59 percent of voters. In November 2016, Maine voters rejected a background check referendum by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, while Nevada voters narrowly adopted an unenforceable background check measure 50.45 to 49.55 percent

“Universal” background checks facilitate firearm registration

NICS would become a gun owner registry if all firearms transfers were subject to NICS checks and the FBI retained records of approved checks indefinitely, both of which gun control supporters have proposed. Such records would include information currently maintained on federal Form 4473, documenting the identity of the firearm purchaser and the make, model and serial number of the firearm transferred. Over time, as people sell or bequeath their firearms, a registry of firearm transfers would become a registry of gun owners.

Indefinite Firearm Purchase Delays

The House 2021 gun control agenda also includes H.R. 1446, introduced by Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), which would allow unelected government bureaucrats the discretion to cause indefinite firearm purchase delays. The legislation would eliminate the current 3-day safety-valve provision under the federal firearms background check system that prevents the government from instituting an indefinite delay on firearm purchases for law-abiding Americans

All Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers) are required to conduct a background check on prospective purchasers to determine if transferring the firearm would violate state or federal law. Under current law, if an FFL initiates a background check, but does not receive a determination from NICS within three business days, the FFL may proceed with the firearm transfer. After the three-day window, the FBI continues to research the matter that gave rise to an individual’s delay for 90 days after the check was initiated. If it is later determined that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is notified and tasked with retrieving the firearm.

The current three-day safety-valve provision is vital and protects gun owners in numerous ways. The safety-valve provision ensures that if there is a disruption to NICS or an overwhelming volume of background checks, lawful firearm transfers from dealers can still take place. Most importantly, the safety-valve provision ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutionally-protected individual right.

Absent this provision, the FBI would have less incentive to conduct NICS checks in a timely manner. Moreover, the agency would have free reign to indefinitely delay any transfers they deem undesirable - for whatever political or purported public policy purpose they could concoct. This would turn all firearms sales from dealers into something akin to may-issue licensing. Prospective gun buyers who are not prohibited from owning firearms by law could be denied by bureaucratic dictate through the form of an indefinite delay.

NRA members and other freedom-loving Americans should stay tuned to NRAILA.org and NRA’s H.R. 8 website for updates on this legislation and for vital information on how to combat this threat to liberty.

Use the following link to email your congressional representative:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210302/report-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-two-gun-control-bills

Senate Bill S1605 has been assigned a "Same As" bill in the Assembly: A3829

Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:17:00 GMT

Not good~~ Write your Reps and let them know your position on this legislation!

Senate Bill S1605 has been assigned a "Same As" bill in the Assembly: A3829 Senate Bill S1605

Requires a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun
to submit to a mental health evaluation . . .

Sponsor: SANDERS

Recent Actions: Jan 14, 2021 - REFERRED TO CODES

Review S1605 on NYSenate.gov

What this Means:

In New York State, both the Senate and Assembly must pass a bill before the Governor can consider it for signature (approval) or veto (rejection). A3829 is an identical version of S1605 in the Assembly. Experienced observers know that a bill with a “same as” in the alternate house is an important early sign that a bill could pass both the Senate and Assembly. It indicates that individual lawmakers in each house are supportive of the bill.

What Happens Next: The committee may amend the bill to satisfy concerns of committee members, leave it as is, or refer it to another committee for further deliberation. The bill may be reported to the full Senate chamber for consideration if a majority share of the committee members support it. If a bill has not been addressed by the committee by the end of the two-year legislative term, the bill is said to have 'died in committee'.

What Can I Do? You can subscribe to email alerts for A3829 at the following URL:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A3829

Additionally, all members of the Senate welcome legislative feedback from constituents at nysenate.gov. When you use the New York State Senate website to officially support or oppose this bill, your feedback will be shared directly with your senator.

Elderly Veteran Kills Home Intruder Who Attacked His Wife

Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:35:13 GMT

Elderly Veteran Kills Home Intruder Who Attacked His Wife By Jason Hall, Feb 18, 2021

A Vietnam War veteran acted quickly after his wife was attacked by a home intruder carrying a large knife recently.

Herbert Parrish, 82, and his wife, Lois, 79, were inside their South Carolina home when they heard a knock on their back door Monday (February 15), FOX 57 reports.

Lois opened the door to find a man claiming to be looking for his chihuahua and asked if she had seen it. Lois told him "no" and the situation became violent, with the man pushing his way inside as she attempted to close the door.

A police report states the man pulled out a large knife and began attacking Lois before Herbert decided to fight back.

“I felt, we’re gone. He’s going to kill us and take what he can take,” Herbert told FOX 57. “He was not going to go out that door and leave us alive. That’s the way I felt. That’s why I said, 'I’ve got to do something quick and get the edge on him. Get the advantage on him,'”

Herbert grabbed his shotgun hanging on the wall of the door and hit the intruder with the handle of the gun "at least 10 times right in the face" until he was unconscious.

The intruder was identified as Harold Runnels, 61, and later pronounced dead at the Augusta University Medical Center late Monday night from injuries sustained during the incident.

Lois told FOX 57 that Runnels lived in a nearby mobile home and she had seen him walking around the area in the past.

FOX 57 reports both Herbert and Lois Parrish experienced injuries during the attack, but are both expected to make a full recovery.

TV Shows Push Gun Control Myths -- in Sync with Biden

Sat, 20 Feb 2021 17:48:38 GMT

TV Shows Push Gun Control Myths -- in Sync with Biden by John R. Lott Jr., February 18, 2021

Last week, the Biden administration promised gun control groups that it will soon roll out a massive push for limits on firearm purchases and other measures. President Biden reiterated that promise on Sunday. And the television networks aren’t waiting to lay the groundwork for this effort.

CBS is in a full-court press for gun control on its evening entertainment television shows. The bad guys are always white supremacists who use machine guns — supposedly AR-15s — to commit mass public shootings. Criminals in Mexico supposedly get machine guns from the United States. A father’s desire to protect his family only leads to tragedy when his daughter gets into the gun safe and uses the weapon in a mass public shooting. And guns in the home pose a danger for children. Gun registration is necessary for solving crime.

NBC isn’t to be left out, showing a woman who tried but failed to use a gun to protect herself. Instead, her gun was taken from her and used to kill a police officer. The lesson is that owning a gun will only bring you grief.

And that’s just in the first six weeks of the year. Every show gives an inaccurate impression about firearms, thereby helping in this push for gun restrictions. It’s as though these shows were written by Michael Bloomberg’s gun control organizations. Indeed, the networks are working with these groups. A member of Moms Demand Action recently wrote a Washington Post op-ed headlined: “Guns are white supremacy’s deadliest weapon. We must disarm hate.” So it isn’t too surprising that show after show portrays neo-Nazis using machine guns to commit mass public shootings. CBS’s “SWAT,” “FBI: Most Wanted,” “FBI,” and” Bull” all push this theme. They often refer explicitly to these guns as AR-15s. Others, such as “Magnum PI” and “NCIS LA,” constantly show criminals using machine guns.

In real life, machine guns aren’t used in mass public shootings -- and in only two murders since the 1930s. AR-15s are not machine guns. They are semi-automatic rifles that fire the same bullets with the same power and rapidity as any small-caliber, semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Also, it’s rare for white supremacists to commit mass public shootings – and in 72% of these murderers the shooters have no obvious political views. By far the next largest group is Islamic extremists, at 10%. People identified as “right-wingers” only make up 3%, and another 3% are conservative or Republicans. The same numbers are liberal, Democrat, left-wing, or black militant. While 58% of mass public shooters are white (excluding Middle Easterners), that is less than their share of the population (64.4%).

“Magnum PI” has an episode where a 12-year-old steals his father’s gun from a bedside table and accidentally shoots his 10-year-old brother. The message is that parents should be afraid of having guns in the home. But, in 2019, there were 37 accidental gun deaths among children under 11 years of age in the entire country. Most of those deaths involve shots fired by adult males, typically in their mid- to late-20s, who also have criminal records and are very likely to be drug addicts or alcoholics. With 43.8 million children under 11, the probability of a young child getting ahold of a gun and accidentally shooting another child is incredibly small.

CBS’s “Coyote,” starring Michael Chiklis, contains multiple misleading claims in virtually every episode. Chiklis’s character claims that the United States is the source of Mexico’s machine guns, but only 17.6% of all criminal firearms collected by Mexican authorities can be traced back to America. Hollywood screenwriters may not realize it, but you can’t just walk into gun stores in the U.S. and buy machine guns.

CBS’s “FBI” portrays a Mexican family living in the United States. The wife and daughter are murdered in a mass public shooting committed by a white supremacist. The grieving husband/father relates a conversation with his wife about her concerns that the U.S., which is flooded with guns, is more violent than Mexico. In fact, Mexico’s murder rate is six times higher than in that of the United States. Incidentally, while about half of American households own guns, well under 1% of Mexican adults legally own a gun.

The lessons from these entertainment shows are clear. Don’t try to use a gun for protection, and it’s better to not even think of owning one. Also, the biggest danger in present-day America is white racists with machine guns. Gun control advocates know Americans won’t accept more gun control if given accurate information. It is bad enough that news programs provide only one side of this debate. But when Americans just want to be entertained, they still can’t escape lies about gun ownership.

Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “Gun Control Myths.” Until last month, Lott was the senior adviser for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/02/18/tv_shows_push_gun_control_myths_--_in_sync_with_biden_145263.html

From Congress Woman Elise Stefanik

Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:39:15 GMT

Elise Stefanik joins Martha MacCallum on Fox News to discuss Cuomo's massive criminal corruption scandal.

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 03:44:07 GMT

Elise Stefanik joins Hannity to discuss Cuomo's catastrophic COVID coverup.

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 01:36:38 GMT

HR 127: Bill Calls for Serious Fines, Prison Time for Unregistered Firearms

Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:48:29 GMT

HR 127: Bill Calls for Serious Fines, Prison Time for Unregistered Firearms
RELATED STORY: WITH FINES UP TO $150,000 AND PRISON SENTENCES OF 25 YEARS, REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE'S NEW BILL — HR 127 — IS A MESS OF GUN CONTROL.

(i) has attained 21 years of age; (ii) after applying for the license— (I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law;

(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and

(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training; and (iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d).”

While Congress considers another stimulus bill to help out Americans suffering during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, one federal lawmaker has far different plans for America’s law-abiding gun owners. Her name is Sheila Jackson Lee. Her bill, HR 127, brings incredible fines and prison sentences for gun owners.

Biden Calls Guns a ‘National Health Crisis’ — Here’s Why He’s Wrong

Yes, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is the author of HR 127, the much-lamented anti-gun measure recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. She wants gun owners licensed and all their guns registered. On top of that, she wants gun owners to purchase a special insurance policy from the U.S. Attorney General for $800 a year. But perhaps the most egregious item about her fundamentally unconstitutional measure is the penalties from breaking the new laws.

Make no mistake here: There would be absolutely no hand-slapping under the new law. Gun owners wouldn’t get a break for not complying with the licensing and registration mandates. While Lee and other Democrats in Congress refuse to strengthen laws that would increase penalties for violent criminals, she’s plenty happy to send gun owners to jail for up to a quarter of a century—after draining their bank accounts—for small violations of her sweeping legislation.

The measure states an unlicensed person possessing a non-registered firearm faces fines ranging from $75,000 to $150,000. Further, violators would face imprisonment of up to 15-25 years. The law even addresses anyone illegally transferring a weapon, like loaning a gun to a buddy for a hunting trip; that infraction brings fines of $50,000 to $75,000 and a prison stretch of 10 to 15 years.

And that’s not all. Gun owners violating the provision of the measure banning ammunition .50-caliber and larger face massive penalties. Fines range from $50,000 to $100,000, while imprisonment ranges 10 to 20 years. Magazines holding more than 10 rounds would bring fines ranging from $10,000 to $25,000. They would also include prison sentences ranging one to five years.

Penalties aside, if you haven’t heard the details about HR 127 yet, they are quite alarming.

The measure does, indeed, require registration of every firearm owned in America (except those owned by criminals, of course). The applicable part of the legislation states: “The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, shall establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration with the Bureau of each firearm present in the United States.”

That provision continues: “Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau — (A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and (B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.”

The section on licensing also proves quite alarming. It states the Attorney General shall issue licenses only in the following circumstances:

Other interesting provisions dictate more stringent licensing requirements for “military-style weapons,” a mandatory $800 gun insurance policy sold by the government, a psychological evaluation to receive a license, a 24-hour training course administered by the Attorney General to qualify for a license and a ban on all private transfers without approval by the Attorney General.

In the end, HR 127 is a horrible piece of legislation for America’s law-abiding gun owners. And, the penalties for violating the proposed law are way over the top. They appear to be Jackson Lee’s attempt at seeing if those Americans who are saying, “Come and take it,” are ready to play hardball or are just blowing smoke.

Biden Pushes Gun Control On Parkland Shooting Anniversary

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:50:59 GMT

Biden Pushes Gun Control On Parkland Shooting Anniversary MICHAEL GINSBERG February 14, 2021

President Joe Biden demanded Congress pass new gun control measures on the three-year anniversary of the Parkland school shooting.

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting” to pass new legislation, he announced in a statement. Biden called for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and legal liability for gun manufacturers, all positions he pushed during his campaign. (RELATED: ‘It’s A Disaster’: Joe Biden’s Gun Plan Could Bankrupt The Firearms Industry, Advocates Say)

Biden invoked the memory of the 17 students who were killed on Feb. 14, 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“For three years now, the Parkland families have spent birthdays and holidays without their loved ones … All across our nation, parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends have known the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence,” the statement read.

The pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety hailed Biden’s statement, calling it “a fitting tribute to every gun violence survivor.”

Party Registration Deadline Extended

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:13:15 GMT

Party Registration Deadline Extended, Nick Reisman, February 15, 2021

Note: Make sure you are registered to vote with the party who you actually want to support. In New York State you can only vote in Primary elections of the party with whom you are registered. ( See the information at the following link: https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_New_York )

New York voters will have more time to change their party registration, Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Sunday announced.

Cuomo signed an executive order extending the deadline to Tuesday, Feb. 16. The move is meant to create a uniform statewide policy after the party registration deadline fell on a Sunday this year.

The move is meant to give local elections officials more time to process party registration changes and as many of those local boards of election are short on staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The right to vote is one of the sacred pillars of our democracy, and as we continue to fight the war on COVID, we can't put democracy on hold," Cuomo said. "Today, we are extending the period for voters to change their party enrollment until Tuesday, February 16 to help break down more barriers to the ballot box and help ensure everyone has a chance to exercise this fundamental right."

The change takes effect immediately.

GUN RIGHTS WATCH: SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE WARRANTLESS ENTRY CASE

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:57:50 GMT

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE WARRANTLESS ENTRY CASE February 12, 2021 | by Hannah Hill

Can the police enter your home without a warrant to take your guns?

That’s the question the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide in Caniglia v. Strom.

The court decision to review a landmark Fourth Amendment case involving illegal gun seizure is a remarkable about-face from the previous summer, when the justices dismissed ten key gun rights cases.

Caniglia v. Strom arose from a non-violent disagreement between a husband and wife (the Caniglias). Mrs. Caniglia told the police her husband might be suicidal, and the officers promised Mr. Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he agreed to go to the hospital for an evaluation.

Mr. Caniglia agreed to go, and was evaluated and discharged the same day.

After he left for the hospital, the police entered their home – despite the lack of a warrant – and seized two handguns.

This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

As the guns were seized without a legal process, there was no real process for recovering them.

Both Mr. Caniglia and Mrs. Caniglia attempted to get the guns back over the next month, and the police simply refused to return them until the couple filed this lawsuit.

The officers claim they acted under the “community caretaking” exception to the due process requirements for searches. This exception to the warrant requirement was created by the Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski:

“[P]olice officers…frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”

As long as it’s not “unreasonable,” the argument went, entering a vehicle for “community caretaking” purposes without a warrant was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, this only applied to vehicles, and the lower courts are divided on whether or not the exception should be applied to homes as well.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the question. Oral arguments have been scheduled for March 24, 2021.

Our legal team is watching this case closely, as well as other gun-related cases currently pending before the Supreme Court, and will provide updates.

Click here to make a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contribution to help the National Foundation for Gun Rights challenge anti-Second Amendment laws and rulings in the courts!

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant

Sun, 07 Feb 2021 03:17:49 GMT

By Evan Gerstmann, Associated Press

The Supreme Court has just scheduled arguments for an important case on warrantless searches ...

The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.

There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.

However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.

Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.

Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for a warrant. As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional.

There is a vigorous debate about whether the community care exception can apply to searches of a person’s home as well as of their car. Vehicles have always had less 4th Amendment protection than homes, which are considered a person’s most private sphere. Federal courts have been divided on this question and the Supreme Court has not ruled on it until now.

The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”

It is certainly true that the police need a good deal of discretion in carrying out their varied, complex, and sometimes dangerous duties. But they are also powerful agents of the government and their power is supposed to be restrained by the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect the home above all other places. And whatever one’s views on gun control may be, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to keep handguns in the home is at the core of the 2nd Amendment.

Unlike the “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid” exceptions, the community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant. And the question of what sort of caretaking falls under this exception is extremely vague. Will the police be able to use it to, for example, conduct warrantless searches of political protesters’ homes to make sure they aren’t planning on violent behavior at their next political rally? The Supreme Court is going to take a very close look at this case and there is a good chance that they will overrule the lower court’s decision.

A412 / S476 - Making it Illegal for those under 21 to own firearms.

Thu, 04 Feb 2021 20:58:34 GMT

'He's already a hero because he's a Vietnam veteran. Now he's even a bigger hero because he saved his family.'

Thu, 04 Feb 2021 20:51:24 GMT

'He's already a hero because he's a Vietnam veteran. Now he's even a bigger hero because he saved his family.'

A Missouri homeowner fatally shot a man in a suspected burglary of his home near Willard in the middle of the night last week, Greene County investigators told KYTV-TV.

POLL: What scares you the most?

What are the details?
What do we know about the suspect?

Deputies were called to a home in the 6000 block of West Hawthorn Court in the Meadows Subdivision for a burglary in progress around 4 a.m. Thursday, the station noted in a previous story.

Deputies found the suspect dead inside the residence, KYTV reported, adding that a front window was shattered.

"The suspect attacked the homeowner, and the homeowner was able to defend himself, and as a result the suspect is deceased," Deputy Jason Winston with the Greene County Sheriff's Office told the station.

"I'm a little shocked this is all going down next door," neighbor Jay Davis noted to KYTV.

Investigators did not identify the two other people who were in the house when the break-in occurred, the station said, adding that those two people weren't hurt. The homeowner, however, was taken to a hospital where he was being treated for injuries that were not life threatening, KYTV said.

"He probably saved them," Davis told the station regarding his neighbor. "He's already a hero because he's a Vietnam veteran. Now he's even a bigger hero because he saved his family."

Winston added to KYTV, "We're just glad the homeowner was able to confront this suspect and defend himself and his family against this attack."

Investigators identified the deceased burglary suspect as Ryan Altman, 37, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the station said.

The sheriff's office is working to figure out why the suspect chose to break into the house, KYTV noted.

"We have no idea as to why this suspect chose the home or why he made unauthorized entry into the home," Winston told the station. "Hopefully we get to the bottom of it as our investigators continue to figure out what happened here this morning."

Winston also noted to KYTV that the residents of the home "have no idea who the suspect is; there's no connection there."

Investigators added to the station that they are also looking to see if a pickup truck found in a ditch behind the home in question is related to the incident.

H.R. 127: A New Bill In Congress Would Literally End Your 2nd Amendment Rights Permanently

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 22:14:51 GMT

H.R. 127: A New Bill In Congress Would Literally End Your 2nd Amendment Rights Permanently BY TYLER DURDEN, WEDNESDAY, FEB 03, 2021

Authored by Michael Snyder via End of The American Dream blog,

If a new bill that has been introduced in Congress eventually becomes law, the 2nd Amendment will still be in the U.S. Constitution, but for all practical purposes the rights that it is supposed to guarantee will be dead and gone. H.R. 127 was submitted on January 4th, and if you have not read it yet you can find the full text right here. It contains a lot of technical language, and so in this article I am going to try to break down what it means very simply. Now that the Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, there is going to be a major push to ram through some form of gun control legislation. If it is not this bill, it will be another one, so we need to be diligent.

One of the biggest things that H.R. 127 would do is that it would create a national firearms registration system that would literally be accessible by anyone…

HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military – even the GENERAL PUBLIC! The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.

So if your neighbor, a co-worker, or someone that just wanted to rob your home wanted to know how you were armed, all they would have to do would be to look it up in the firearms registration system.

This bill would also apply retroactively.

Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored.

Needless to say, if the government knows where all of your guns are being stored, it would make it that much easier to grab them from you at some future date.

H.R. 127 would also require all gun owners to be federally licensed.

That would mean that owning a gun would no longer be a right. Instead, it would be reduced to a “privilege” that the government could take away at any time.

According to the bill, the licensing procedure would include “a psychological evaluation”…

The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.

I know a lot of guys out there that would definitely not want to go through any sort of a “psychological evaluation” by a government-approved psychologist.

And it wouldn’t just be you that would get interviewed.

According to the bill, spouses and other family members would be interviewed as well…

For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to “further determine the state of the mental emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.” Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.

The goal, of course, is to make owning guns as difficult as possible.

Democrats figure that if they can put up as many barriers to gun ownership as possible, a lot less people will end up owning them.

Thirdly, this bill would also greatly restrict the type of ammunition that you can own…

Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of “large-capacity magazines” (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and “ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.”

I know that all of this sounds utterly ridiculous, but the restrictions in this bill actually sound very, very similar to what Joe Biden has been publicly proposing…

During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden promised a long list of gun control regulations. There is a reason that Michael Bloomberg spent $125 million helping Biden in Florida and something over $600 million nationally in the general election.

The agenda includes: classifying many semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 bullets as Class 3 weapons (which can require nine months or more for approval and a $200 fee), national gun licensing, “red flag” laws that let judges take away people’s guns without a hearing, background checks on the private transfer of guns, and bans on some semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military weapons.

Gun control is very high on the list of things that Joe Biden wants to get accomplished during the next four years.

So like I said, if it isn’t this bill, it will be another one that is similar.

They are coming for your 2nd Amendment, and they aren’t going to stop until they get what they want.

Meanwhile, this is all happening at a time when murder rates all across America are going through the roof…

“Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year,” the report states, calling the 30 percent surge “a large and troubling increase that has no modern precedent.”

We have never seen major city murder rates jump by an average of 30 percent in a single year.

Things are getting really crazy out there, and many believe that 2021 will be even worse.

For almost a year, there has been civil unrest in our cities on an almost nightly basis. As I write this, civil unrest has erupted in Rochester, New York. We live at a time when rioting, looting, arson and vandalism have become commonplace, and the senseless violence that we have witnessed so far is just the leading edge of the storm.

Millions of Americans can see what is happening to our society and they are quite concerned. 2020 was a record year for gun sales in the United States, and dealers have reported that demand is extremely strong so far in 2021 as well.

The Democrats do not like this one bit, and they are going to do their very best to put a stop to it.

Please let your friends, family and contacts know about H.R. 127, because an all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment is coming, but at this point most people are not even aware that it is about to happen.

NY Senate bill S2844, NY Assembly bill A930

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:43:39 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a930

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s2844

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

NYS Assembly Member Directory:
https://scopeny2a.org/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?linkAndRecipientCode=JeFf2M7uK8U8MRyfZItiGTYS59oml7xixFZBxtLYgr4VisdLb6bTK4cLKB2YxeIrcdu8IwjSEE%2fHqZztrbGgUTeHc2erC6I4aAQFF56%2fVAQ%3d

NYS Senate Member Directory:
https://scopeny2a.org/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?linkAndRecipientCode=%2bBCYbRIcTRm0xufhsAcZYPVwb%2bOAxzNpyKY2RXd1OqggxQpVYLIopVZ1s6%2b57qv%2b%2fFC7caXduCILwb%2fagFInB9XzKdBq43AthnwtZr519o0%3d

A02222 that prohibits school marksmanship and shooting programs, eliminates firearm safety education and removes hunting as a key component of conservation education

Mon, 01 Feb 2021 03:24:12 GMT

Biden will ‘Defeat The NRA’

Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:42:44 GMT

Biden will ‘Defeat The NRA’ by Zachary Sieber, The Epoch Times, January 10, 2021

President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 8 promised to “defeat” the National Rifle Association while he’s in office.

Biden’s official Twitter account was responding to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was among 14 people wounded in a shooting rampage by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson in 2011; six people died in the attack. Giffords had recounted how her life and community “changed forever.”

“But the attack did not break me—or the people I represented in Congress. We came together, turned pain into purpose, and found hope in each other,” she wrote, adding that she continues to work to “achieve a safer America.”

Biden responded, saying: “Your perseverance and immeasurable courage continue to inspire me and millions of others. I pledge to continue to work with you—and with survivors, families, and advocates across the country—to defeat the NRA and end our epidemic of gun violence.”

The NRA, which has more than 5 million members, seeks to protect and educate people about their Second Amendment rights.

While the association didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Biden’s post, its lobbying arm recently published an article that says Biden would “begin a concerted attack on the rights of American gun owners” after being inaugurated.

“We must be ready for the onslaught,” the post reads, adding that a Biden administration, if officials get their way, “will ban and confiscate the most-commonly-owned rifle in the United States” and “will arbitrarily limit the number of guns that can be bought per month,” among other measures.

Biden’s website says he has a plan to end “our gun violence epidemic” and boasts that he has taken on the NRA twice and won, referring to his help passing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993 and in passing a 10-year ban on some weapons and magazines the following year.

“As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again,” the site states.

Some of the proposals include banning the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, restricting the number of guns one person may buy per month to one, and prohibiting people convicted of hate crimes from owning guns.

Paul believes his maintenance would provide a more professional website since all chapter sites would be consistent.

Senate Bill S1605 2021-2022 Legislative Session Requires a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to submit to a mental health evaluation

Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:25:20 GMT

Senate Bill S1605 2021-2022 Legislative Session

Requires a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to submit to a mental health evaluation . . .

Here's the link to the full text of the bill:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S1605?utm_content=new_prev_ver&utm_campaign=bill_alerts&utm_source=ny_state_senate&utm_medium=email

Armed Rallies At State Capitols? Beware: Potential False Flag Event

Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:20:00 GMT

Posted by Gary Marbut, Ammoland Inc.

Armed Rallies At State Capitols? Beware: Potential False Flag Events?
There are some who claim that such proposals are provocateur efforts to create false flag incidents to demonize gun owners. I can't say for sure, but that's possible.

None of the major gun rights groups are advocating such demonstrations.

You may have heard Internet or other chatter urging armed rallies at state capitols for and before the inauguration.

What I do know for sure is that any such demonstrations are not encouraged or supported by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I also know that things in Montana are going our way politically. My well-developed political instinct is that now is not a good time, to aid our political progress, for any “in your face” type of direct action in Helena. Such action would most likely offend political friends who are currently very much with us. Said differently, it is my judgment that a confrontational armed rally at the Montana capitol would most likely be counterproductive to the political gains we expect to make this legislative session.

So, if you've heard about and maybe wondering about any proposed armed rallies at state capitols, I can't say what the benefit or effect might be in other states. But, in Montana, where I know the political turf, I believe such a demonstration would not be a good idea. Plus, the possibility exists that this idea is being circulated by anti-gunners trying to bait us to sticking a leg into a bear trap.

Remington Offers Jobs Back Amid Union Concerns

Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:32:54 GMT

Remington Offers Jobs Back Amid Union Concerns by Guy J. Sagi

Roundhill Group, the firm that purchased the Remington firearm assets for $13 million during Remington Outdoor bankruptcy proceedings two months ago, has issued letters to nearly 200 of the 585 former workers in the failed company’s famed Ilion, NY, plant asking if they can report back to work on Feb. 15. The new owners anticipate ATF will have approved their FFL by that time, although officials from United Mine Workers Local 717—the labor union representing most employees at the factory—have expressed concern over the pre-Christmas announcement.

The Syracuse Post-Standard summarized the tension as, “Union accuses Remington Arms’ new owner in Ilion of going around it with job offers.” A union official told the newspaper that the labor contract clearly states workers will be called back by seniority, but claimed there are indications the stipulation was not honored in the rehiring offers.

“The company’s move also drew criticism because it included a request that workers waive various legal rights, including claims for separation pay and other benefits,” the article explains. Workers have been picketing the plant periodically, hoping to recover severance, vacation and health benefits from Remington Outdoor, despite the fact it was dissolved and sold off in pieces months ago.

“Personally I’m not asking any ex-Remington employees to give up any rights they may have against the old company or estate,” Roundhill Group partner Richmond Italia said in a statement sent to Utica, NY’s News Channel 2. “The reality is there was a insistence from the estate that that language be put in the offer letter. My lawyer suggested that we comply with their request. All I could say is that if the employees give up that right or not, it will not affect our decision on hiring them.” The TV station reports that the workers offered to resume work, at the same pay, had until Dec. 28 to respond.

“Our goal was at the very least to try and make 200 families a little more secure in this holiday season,” Italia told the Times Telegram. “We will not stop working towards bringing Remington back to the height of its operations in Ilion, NY.”

The 25th and Impeachment

Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:19:30 GMT

The 25^th and Impeachment by Tom Reynolds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why try it with such little time remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Heart! Firearm Friendly Freshmen Class Reports for Duty

Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:33:46 GMT

Firearm Friendly Freshmen Class Reports for Duty AmmoLand Editor Jim GrantJanuary 6, 2021, By Larry Keane The GOP freshman class, outnumbering Democrats by a three-to-one margin, arrived at Capitol Hill at the same time America is watching the face of gun ownership change. The 117th Congress gaveled into session on Jan. 3 and among the new faces in the U.S. House of Representatives are dozens of firearm-friendly freshmen. It’s the most diverse Republican freshmen class ever and includes military veterans, minorities, and a historic tally of women.

The GOP freshman class, outnumbering Democrats by a three-to-one margin, arrived at Capitol Hill at the same time America is watching the face of gun ownership change. A record 21 million firearm purchases were made in 2020. That includes 8.4 million people who bought a gun for the first time last year. By all counts, the image of who is buying guns no longer fits dated caricatures. Forty percent of 2020’s gun buyers are women. African American gun buyers grew 58 percent over 2019.

The threats to Second Amendment rights are real and the new Members of Congress have staked out their position to defend those rights.

Six Second Amendment-supporting freshman members hail from Texas, including Navy veterans U.S. Reps. Tony Gonzalez and Ronny Jackson and former Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls. Former Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne was sworn in, campaigning on a message of firearm ownership and personal security for women and calling out the “defund the police” movement that puts lives at risk. Rep. Pete Sessions regained a congressional seat and former Texas state legislator Pat Fallon was also elected – both hold strong, well-known records on gun rights.

California sent five new members to Congress and all are stalwarts on the Second Amendment. Reps. Michelle Steel and Young Kim are the first two Korean-American Members of Congress and each back firearm rights. Congressman Jay Olbernolt, who was a state legislator, previously criticized California infringements on the Second Amendment, saying “I know what the solutions aren’t. The last thing we ought to be doing is taking the arms out of the hands of our concerned citizens who know how to use them properly.” Rejoining Congress are Reps. Darrell Issa and David Valadao, each with gun rights records.

Florida added Congressman Byron Donalds, a former state legislator. He said, “In Congress, you can expect me to defend your Constitutional rights, no matter the cost. Shall not be infringed, means Shall not be infringed!”

Congresswoman Kat Cammack, herself a Florida concealed carry permit holder, agreed, saying “I will always uphold and defend our Second Amendment rights. As a concealed carry permit holder and the wife of a first responder, I am adamant about protecting this most basic American right. This issue is personal to me and my family.”

U.S. Reps. Scott Franklin, Maria Elvira Salazar, and Carlos Gimenez also join the ranks from the Sunshine State.

In South Carolina, gun rights supporter Rep. Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, took back a congressional seat from a gun control congressman. Congressman Andrew Clyde will represent his Georgia district, bringing his experience as a firearm business owner and former Navy officer along with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been vocal on her gun rights positions.

Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has a well-known reputation as a Second Amendment supporter and already made a splash for gun rights by forcing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to cave on implementing new gun control rules in the House of Representatives.

The great news for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters across the country is that there are dozens of more new members who will also be allies in Congress. They’ll be needed as the threats to the firearm industry and gun owners are expected to grow.

President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris won’t be slowed. The most anti-gun presidential ticket in history is ready to move on several gun control proposals, including plans to confiscate and ban modern sporting rifles, impose red flag laws that deny due process, suffocate firearm small businesses through regulation, and above all, eliminate the firearm industry by repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

NSSF is already forging relationships with these Members of Congress, showing them the importance of the industry to their states, districts, and the rights of the citizens they represent.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect, and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

"Reciprocity" bill (HR38) introduced again!

Fri, 08 Jan 2021 03:34:16 GMT

Reciprocity bill (HR38) introduced again!

The year 2020 saw Americans across political and demographic lines embrace their Second Amendment rights in unprecedented numbers. Last week, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) reintroduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would give more meaningful effect to those rights by ensuring they stay intact as travelers crossed state lines.

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia routinely issue concealed carry permits to all qualified applicants. The norm among these states is to have reciprocity agreements to give effect to those permits beyond the issuing state. States are also increasingly passing universal recognition laws for all concealed carry permits. And 16 states recognize a right to carry concealed without a permit. (Detailed information is available on the NRA-ILA’s website.)

Yet a handful of anti-gun states where concealed carry permits are issued on a discretionary basis continue to deny non-resident concealed carriers any recognition at all. This creates traps for unwary travelers, who – having made a point of jumping through the legal hoops to carry lawfully – believe these efforts will be given full faith and credit by other jurisdictions. Stories abound of travelers facing years in prison for the carrying of a concealed firearm that they innocently believed was covered by their permit or that was otherwise lawful in their state of residence.

H.R. 38 would correct these injustices. It would recognize the right of travelers to carry who:

May lawfully possess and receive a firearm under federal law.

Are carrying photographic identification issued by the U.S. or a state government.

Have a concealed carry permit or reside in a state that otherwise provides for lawful concealed carry.

to carry in other states that provide a means of lawful concealed carry for the state’s own residents.

These travelers would be able to carry in other states that provide for lawful concealed carry for that’s state’s own residents and will have to obey any laws that establish prohibited places for firearms or concealed carry. Private property owners, moreover, would maintain discretion over whether or to what degree concealed carry was authorized on their property.

National reciprocity has long been the NRA’s highest legislative priority to ensure that the fundamental right to self-defense does not end at the state line. The NRA thanks Rep. Hudson for his strong and consistent leadership in the march toward national reciprocity and commends H.R. 38 for immediate action in the U.S. House.

Assembly Bill A416

Wed, 06 Jan 2021 17:37:41 GMT

Assembly Bill A416 Liberals have been trying to stifle any speech with which they disagree, the 1^st Amendment be damned. Dissent is dangerous to them. If you have the temerity to disagree with the accepted position of those in power, you will be punished. Joe Stalin perfected this approach years ago; lock ‘em up. Apparently, Nikita Khrushchev was right that Communism would eventually take over.

A Democratic member of the New York State Assembly from NY City, Nick Perry, authored Bill A416 which calls for the ‘removal and / or detention’ of individuals who are identified as or even suspected of being a ‘case, contact or carrier’ of a contagious disease. A golden opportunity to remove those that dare disagree with the left, under the cover of law.

From the bill itself:

“Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor or his or her delegee…may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons... Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee…”

The liberal Governor of NY - or his liberal delegee from within Albany’s liberal swamp - will decide if you need to be imprisoned as a public health menace. Since it is likely that people will object to being removed from their home and imprisoned (in violation of several parts of the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution), it’s likely people will have to be removed at gunpoint.

Further down in the bill it says, “A person who is detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises, shall not conduct himself or herself in a disorderly manner and shall not leave or attempt to leave such facility”.

Disorderly manner? Like not wanting to be imprisoned in violation of the Constitution? And if you try to leave the facility, expect armed guards to say “No.”

Then, the bill says, “When a person or group is ordered to be detained…for a period not exceeding three business days, such person or member of such group shall, upon request, be afforded an opportunity to be heard”.

Again, that pesky “Bill of Rights” doesn’t state you have to “request” to be heard, it requires that you automatically be given a hearing. In fact, the Constitution is specific about what “to be heard” actually means while this bill allows “to be heard” to be left open to interpretation. Of course, the Constitution deals with “Criminal prosecutions” and liberal lawyers will argue in front of liberal judges that this is a loophole since this NY bill covers public health and not criminal prosecutions. But no liberal judge would buy that argument – would they? If there is any doubt about politicians’ priorities, the part of this bill that allows three business days to be heard ensures that no bureaucrat will have their weekend or holiday interrupted because of some silly constitutional issue over being imprisoned. Apparently, NY’s bail reform law that frees public safety threats does not apply to those imprisoned under this bill? This bill imprisons people (for public safety) while other NY State laws release recidivist criminals (for their safety) into the general public. No threat to public safety there! All the Governor of NY would have to do is define someone with a different opinion than his as having a communicable disease (like the flu which kills thousands every year) and that person could be imprisoned in the name of public health. Our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to protect us from these things. But that’s just a piece of outdated paper that needs to be reinterpreted (or ignored) in view of modern issues

The bill further states that, “The provisions of this section shall be utilized in the event that the governor declares a state of health emergency due to an epidemic of any communicable disease".

Don’t liberals often describe gun violence as an “epidemic”? It certainly seems to be “epidemic” in cities governed by liberal mayors where criminals are released without bail! And since carrying a gun poses dangers to others, in liberal minds, doesn’t that make ammunition a carrier of a communicable disease?

Make sure you wear your masks and practice social distancing or you will be taken to the detention center!

Pay attention to this one! S65

Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:55:30 GMT

Jan 06, 2021

REFERRED TO CODES

S65 (ACTIVE) - DETAILS

Current Committee:Senate CodesLaw Section:Penal LawLaws Affected:Rpld §270.00 sub 5, add §265.18, Pen L; add §845-e, Exec LVersions Introduced in 2019-2020 Legislative Session:S1038

S65 (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY

Restricts the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such weapon; creates the no-gun database under the division of criminal justice services.

S65 (ACTIVE) - SPONSOR MEMO

BILL NUMBER: S65 SPONSOR: PERSAUD TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law and the executive law, in relation to the sale of ammunition; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law relating thereto PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the purchase of firearm ammunition by individuals not allowed to own or possess the weapon for which the ammo is used for, pursuant to state and local law. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill repeals Subdivision 5 of section 270.00 of the penal law. Section 2 amends the penal law by adding new section 265.18, which

creates the crime of criminal sale of firearm ammunition. It will be against the law to sell firearm ammunition to a person not authorized to possess the firearm capable of firing such ammunition. Section 3 amends the executive law by adding a new section 845-c, which mandates the establishment of a no-gun database, which shall contain the names, dates of birth, and any other identifying information the divi- sion deems appropriate of any persons not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm. Any person selling firearm ammunition within the state will be permitted to cross-reference the database with the poten- tial buyer of ammunition's identifying information.

Follow this link for the full text of the bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S65

Senate Bill S65 (and Addendum)

Tue, 05 Jan 2021 22:34:57 GMT

Senate Bill S65 (and Addendum) Every two years, a new NY State Senate and Assembly is elected. Bills that are introduced in the first year of a new legislature - but are not voted on - are carried over to the second year of that legislature. After a succeeding legislature is elected, bills are not carried over from the old legislature to the succeeding legislature. However, the old bill may be reintroduced and get a new number.

SCOPE will be keeping you updated as to new bills effecting gun rights. If they seem familiar and the anti-gun liberals seem to be playing the same old song…they are.

With the anti-gun Democrats in control of both houses of the NY legislature as well as the governorship, it will be important for gun owners to be vocal. Let the legislators know that another election is only two years away and we are very aware of any efforts to infringe on our rights.

Here is one of the first efforts: Senate Bill S65, (which was S01038).

This bill does two things: it restricts the sale of ammunition only to individuals authorized to possess such weapon and it creates a no-gun database under the division of criminal justice services. And the devil is in the details…

It repeals section one, sub-division 5 of section 270.00 of the penal law, which states, “it shall be unlawful for any dealer in firearms to sell any ammunition designed exclusively for use in a pistol or revolver to any person, not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver.” The violation of this section shall constitute a class B misdemeanor.

But then it replaces it by adding section 265.18 - Criminal sale of firearms ammunition to the penal law. “A person is guilty of criminal sale of firearm ammunition when such person sells any firearm ammunition to a person not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm capable of firing such ammunition. Criminal sale of firearm ammunition is a class B misdemeanor”.

The second part of the law adds a new section 845-e to executive law. It states that, “The division shall establish and maintain a no-gun database which shall contain the names, dates of birth, and any other identifying information the division deems appropriate of any persons not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm”.

“The division shall allow for 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”.

This means that the ban on purchasing pistol or revolver ammo - unless you own that caliber weapon - would now be extended to include all firearms, not just handguns. Taken a step further, it opens the door to requiring prior authorization to buy ammo (passing the equivalent of a NICS check).

In order for this to work, there will need to be a gun registry of all firearms. How else will the dealer know that you own a similar caliber weapon? Won’t a gun registry be necessary if the government is contemplating confiscation of guns?

This is another law which assumes that criminals will obey the law. It also assumes that the same illegal “Black market” source, from which the criminal illegally bought the gun, will not also illegally sell ammo for it. (Is the spirit of entrepreneurship dead amongst criminals?)

Kiss goodbye to any family or friends buying any ammunition for you.

Most criminals use handguns when committing crimes with firearms. NY City has the most restrictive hand gun laws in the nation and the ban on selling ammo for handguns already exists. How’s all that working out for NYC? Let’s duplicate a law that already doesn’t work!

Basically, this will create another NICS check for ammo sales. Hasn’t the legislature heard the Governor talk about a massive budget deficit? Why would they want to add the expense of creating and administering a new, undeveloped system, which duplicates an existing system, at a time of great budgetary stress? Unless of course your goal is not safety but control at any price. Millions of taxpayer dollars can be paid to a campaign contributor to develop the system.
Bill S65 goes into effect the first November after passage. Since NY would only have until November to develop the system and given Cuomo’s previous record of success in developing new systems, maybe he will need to contact Donald Trump about another operation “Warp Speed”.

To all those gun owners who are not active voters because the government is not coming after their guns…guess what? One small step for ammo, one giant step for gun control.

Addendum: S65 Definitions

The email on S65 did not make it clear as to what weapons it covers.

Below is the actual definition of “Firearm” from NY Penal Law 265.0.

We apologize for any confusion...

or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.

"Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches;

At Large Directors to SCOPE positions

Wed, 30 Dec 2020 19:38:08 GMT

At the annual members meeting in April, At Large Directors to the Board of Directors are elected by the entire membership. These positions are full-fledged board members with full voting rights. At Large directors represent the SCOPE membership, as a whole, whereas County Chairs represent their county.

To be an At Large Director, one must be at least 18 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years prior to their notice of candidacy.

To become an At-Large candidate, a member must give a notice of candidacy and a biography by January 1^st, by US Mail. (must be post-marked by 1/1/2021)

Mail to:

SCOPE
PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

Biographies will appear in the February edition of the Firing Lines.

Here's What America's Largest Ammo Manufacturer Has to Say About the Shortage

Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:40:28 GMT

Beth Baumann, Town Hall 12/20/2020 Here's What America's Largest Ammo Manufacturer Has to Say About the Shortage: All across the country, millions of Americans are on the hunt for ammunition, either for selfdefense, target practice, shooting sports or hunting. Sporting goods stores and small mom and pop businesses have had to severely limit how many rounds of ammo a person can buy at one time. Some have even went so far as to limit ammo solely to those who are purchasing a new firearm because of the shortage. Rumors have swirled through the Second Amendment community, particularly online, about Vista Outdoors, the parent company of Federal, Remington, CCI, and Speer Ammunition. Some have said that Vista Outdoors has ceased manufacturing ammo all together while others have insisted the company is picking and choosing who to sell ammo to. Vista Outdoors' President of Ammunition, Jason Vanderbrink, decided to address – and squash – the rumors once and for all. "I am tired of all the hate mail. I am tired of people showing up at our factories. I'm tired of reading the misinformation out on the Internet right now about us not trying to service the demand that we're experiencing," Vanderbrink explained. "... After a year like right now, when we've hired hundreds of employees to support American manufacturing jobs, all I hear is that we're not making ammunition." The company president broke down the realities of the shortage, something he calls "basic economics." "Seven million new shooters since March, times two boxes [50 rounds per box], which is a conservative estimate, is 700 million new rounds of ammunition our factories have to help produce," he explained. "That is impossible to do in nine months." Not only does the company have to find and hire manufacturing employees, but the employees have to be trained and materials have to be sourced. On top of that, the company is dealing with the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic as well. "So tie all of that in together and you will see we are indeed making ammunition. We, indeed, are shipping ammunition. We're not storing it in secret warehouses," Vanderbrick stated. 12/21/2020 Here's What America's Largest Ammo Manufacturer Has to Say About the Shortage https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/12/20/president-of-four-ammo-companies-addresses-rumors-surrounding-the-ammo-shortage-n2581… 2/2 The company executive said all three of the plants are producing ammo as quickly as possible. Vanderbrick stated the company has produced more hunting ammo – especially in 30-06 – this year than ever before. They are doing their best to keep up with demand. The other calibers they are seeing a high demand for are .22LR and 9mm. According to Vanderbrick, the Vista Outdoors has never seen such a high demand for .9mm than they are now "All of this ammo is sitting here, waiting to be packed up so it can hit the retail shelves," he said. It should not come as a surprise that there is an ammo shortage. It happens every few years, especially during presidential elections. Look at what happened during the 2012 election cycle. Second Amendment-loving Americans were concerned about the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton. What did they do? Bought guns and stocked up on ammo. The same thing happened this year, in part because of a Biden-Harris ticket, and also because of the pandemic. Americans spent more time outside, hunting, fishing and recreating. And guess what? In order to bag a buck you need ammo (assuming you are using a firearm). Every month we have seen record-breaking new numbers of gun owners. In order for those folks to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves, they are buying ammo and hitting the range. They are also keeping a stash for self-defense. While it can often feel frustrating to not see ammunition in stock, give these guys a break. They are working hard to meet demand. They are running on all cylinders in the middle of a pandemic that frequently shuts down manufacturing plants and warehouses. This is also a great reminder to be prepared and buy extra ammo so you won't be out when things are scarce.

Customer Meets Restaurant Robber – Armed Citizen Stories

Sat, 12 Dec 2020 15:06:22 GMT

Note: Many of the items covered in this article have varying opinions by different firearms trainers, but the article presents many of the specifics that are relevant in a self defense situation-- much good food-for-thought... It's because of these complexities that we highly recommend to all new firearms owners that they receive professional training from a competent vendor:

Customer Meets Restaurant Robber – Armed Citizen Stories by Rob Morse, Ammoland

It is 10:30 at night. You walk into a small restaurant to get your takeout order. You’re talking on the phone when a man behind the counter turns around, sees you, and points his gun at you. He orders you to hand over your phone. The three employees behind the counter have their hands up and are emptying the cash drawer. While you had your head in your phone, you walked in on a robbery in progress.

You’re a gun owner. You have your Pennsylvania concealed carry permit. You’re armed tonight. You hold your phone out as you draw your firearm. You shoot your attacker one time in the neck. Now the attacker drops his gun and falls to the ground.

You and the store employees call 911. You stay at the scene and talk to the police. Police recognized your attacker. EMTs say your attacker died at the scene. The police take your gun and ask you to talk to detectives as they review the security video.

Comments

Our defender did a number of things very well. The first thing is that he recognized a problem. It isn't unusual for victims to ask the robber to repeat his demands or to ask if the robber is joking. This is a natural response. We call it a normalcy bias where we experience something so unusual that we don't recognize what is happening. In an extreme case, the robbery is over before the victim is aware of what happened.

The best self-defense moves in the world don't work until we understand what is happening around us.

Our defender decided to defend himself and the other people in the store. He presented his firearm and hit his attacker in a vital area to quickly end the fight. Our defender then had the presence of mind to stop shooting. Most of us are taught to shoot until the threat stops, but there is a reactionary gap between the attacker's response to being shot and our new decision to stop shooting. It looks like our defender was prepared to shoot, and also prepared to stop shooting. Our defender stayed at the restaurant and gave a statement to the police. That is important because we want to establish ourselves as the victim of a violent encounter. There are a lot of details we don't know in this defense, and small details can make a critical difference.

Deciding to defend yourself with a lethal weapon doesn't mean you have to draw that instant. The attacker pointed his gun at the defender and that give the attacker a large advantage. The good news, of a sort, is that robberies are chaotic. We want to wait until the attacker has turned his attention, and hopefully his gun, somewhere else before we draw.

Having our hand on our gun cuts our draw time in half. If you can turn and mask your motions, then you probably gained a half-second by having your hand on the grip of your gun. That is particularly true in cold weather when many of us are wearing a heavy coat. Fortunately for us, reaching for a firearm also looks like getting your wallet out of your back pocket. That half-second is critical in a gunfight.

We also want to move as we draw. Instructors may argue about shooting on the move, but they agree that it is a good idea to move as we clear the gun from the holster and bring it onto the target. We move because movement buys us time. When the bad guy notices that something has changed, he will point his gun back to the location where we were the last time he noticed us. It is a huge advantage not to be there. It takes time for the attacker to notice we moved, to find us, and to point his gun at us. You experienced something like this when you alternate your shots between two targets at the shooting range. Your time between shots is longer than if you were simply shooting at one stationary target. Those fractions of a second add up.

Movement may have another purpose as well. We are responsible for every shot we fire. We might want to move so the ice machine is behind the attacker rather than letting a bullet fly through the kitchen. We can move to the side as well as up and down. We seldom have a perfect situation with a known backstop behind an attacker. Movement may give us an improvement from bad to better.

There is still a lot to do once the bad guy is down. Ask the employees and any other customers in the store if they are hurt. Ask them to look around and see if anyone else is injured.

Robbers often have friends waiting for them as they commit their crimes. Once the bad guy is down, then we want to lock the front and back doors. Maybe the store staff knows this, but maybe they'd appreciate the reminder.

If the immediate threat has ended, then our gun in our hand is no longer our friend. Take a breath or two. Then, carefully put your gun back in its holster. We would also like to cover the attacker's firearm if we can do so without significantly altering any evidence. Emotions are running high and we don't want one of the bystanders to grab the attacker's gun. People feel better once the attacker's gun is out of sight.

Everyone calls 911. You call. The store clerks and cooks call. Ask the shopkeeper from next door who came over after he heard the shot to call 911 too. Those phone calls identify the material witnesses who can affirm your defense. If the store employees don't have access to the security camera video, then ask them to call someone to get the video for you. You'd like your own copy separate from the copy of the video given to the police. At some point, you want to call your lawyer.

Be prepared for the police to take your weapon. They do the same to a policeman who discharges his firearm. I hope you get your gun back soon and in good shape. There are no guarantees.

If we were there, then we might want to do something a little different. We want to look before we enter a new environment so we can avoid potential problems. That means we might have to ignore a phone call that comes at the wrong moment.

The largest lesson is to think how we would act in this situation. Would we see the robbery unfold? Would we watch from outside and call the police? What would you do if your friends, family, or children entered the store before you looked inside? It is easier to come up with possible answers now than in the moment of a robbery. If you're fortunate enough to live with friends and family, then share that question with them.

Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.

6 Things To Know About Texas’s Supreme Court Petition Over 2020’s Messed-Up Election

Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:47:14 GMT

Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore

Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.

In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”

Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.

2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted

Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.

3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims

Notwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”

In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

4. Texas’s Standing to Sue

Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.

5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

6. Texas Brings the Quotes

The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Sheriffs' Association rebukes Cuomo's comments on mass gathering enforcement

Thu, 26 Nov 2020 22:32:40 GMT

13WHAM, Albany, N.Y. – The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is responding to comments made by Gov. Andrew Cuomo regarding enforcement of COVID-19 safety regulations.

During a news conference Monday, the governor announced several new yellow and orange zone designations, some in upstate and western New York.

When asked about local police agencies enforcing safety guidelines for private gatherings, and those which say they will not be actively doing so, Cuomo alleged they were acting in a politically-motivated manner and failing to follow through with their duties.

“You have sheriffs upstate who have said ‘I’m not going to enforce the law’. How a law enforcement officer says ‘I choose not to enforce that law’, I believe that law enforcement officer violates his or her constitutional duty," said Cuomo. "I don’t consider them a law enforcement officer, because you don’t have the right to pick laws that you think that you’ll enforce, and you don’t enforce laws that you don’t agree with. That’s not a law enforcement officer; that’s a dictator.”

In a statement Monday, the Sheriffs’ Association pushed back against the governor’s comments. It says agencies have responded to thousands of complaints since the onset of the pandemic, and it believes the best approach is to educate the public about health mandates and encourage that they be followed.

It argues that the governor’s instructions can’t be practically enforced and that he should be encouraging citizens to voluntarily follow health officials’ guidance.

“We do not know if the governor’s limit on home gatherings to ten individuals is the right number or not,” the organization’s statement read. “That is a decision for science, not us, to make. We do know, however, that the governor has attempted to foist upon local law enforcement an impossible task. How are officers to know, without violating citizens’ right to privacy and other Constitutional rights, how many people are in the home? How are they to determine if the family gathering is to be deemed “essential” or “nonessential”? If twelve people normally reside in the home, are the officers to order two of them to move out? If eleven individuals are found to be present in the home, who is to be charged with violating the order, all eleven or just the last guest to arrive? Or is it only the homeowner who is in violation? Are officers really supposed to arrest guests who don’t stay six feet apart or who fail to have on their face masks during dinner? All of those are serious questions which make it impossible for law enforcement to know how to legally enforce the governor’s order. They are questions that could have been addressed if we had a functioning State Legislature, creating clear and enforceable laws after input from those who would be impacted by them. Instead we are faced with an unenforceable dictate issued without any consultation with law enforcement or the public as to enforceability.”

The Sheriff’s Association urges citizens to follow health officials’ guidance and limit potential exposure to the virus as much as possible.

“We in law enforcement do not have the resources nor the legal authority to force you to do these things,” the association said. “It is a matter of individual responsibility and we are confident that you will all voluntarily rise to the occasion.”

13WHAM has reached out to the governor’s office for comment.

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

Thu, 26 Nov 2020 21:55:23 GMT

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship. Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that the executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. Wednesday’s orders by a closely divided Supreme Court, which had turned down two similar requests over the summer by churches in California and Nevada, represented a clear rightward shift on the court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups and blocked the attendance limits. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, issued the executive order at the center of both disputes in October. As part of the state’s effort to combat COVID-19, the executive order and an initiative that it implements identify clusters of COVID-19 cases and then take action to prevent the virus from spreading. An area immediately around a cluster is known as a “red” zone, where attendance at worship services is limited to 10 people. The area around a “red” zone is known as an “orange” zone; attendance at worship services there is limited to 25 people. “Yellow” zones surround “orange” zones; attendance there is limited to 50% of the building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese went to the Supreme Court on Nov. 12, asking the justices to block the attendance limits after the lower courts declined to do so. It told the Supreme Court that as a practical matter, the order “effectively bars in-person worship at affected churches – a ‘devastating’ and ‘spiritually harmful’ burden on the Catholic community.”

The synagogues followed on Nov. 16. They stressed that although they have complied with previous COVID-19 rules, the restrictions imposed by Cuomo’s order preclude them from conducting services for all of their congregants, and they argued that Cuomo’s order targeted Orthodox Jewish communities because other Orthodox Jews had not complied with the rules.

Cuomo pushed back last week, responding that the restrictions on attendance no longer apply to the churches and synagogues, which are in areas that are now designated as yellow zones. But in any event, Cuomo told the justices, the order isn’t focused on gatherings because they are religious, but because of the possibility that they could be “superspreader” events. If anything, Cuomo added, the order treats religious gatherings more favorably than secular events – such as plays and concerts – that involve similar risks.

In an unsigned opinion in the Catholic diocese case that also applies to the synagogues’ case, the five-member majority blocked the state from enforcing the attendance limits while the challengers continue to litigate the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits. The court explained that Cuomo’s order does not appear to be neutral, but instead “single[s] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” For example, although a synagogue or a church in a red zone is limited to 10 people at a service, there are no limits on how many people a nearby “essential” business – which can include acupuncture or a camp ground – can admit.

Because the Cuomo order is not neutral, the court continued, it is subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny. It fails that test, the court concluded, because the order is too broad. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. And if the restrictions are enforced, the court added, they will result in permanent harm to people who cannot attend and for whom a livestream of services is not an adequate substitute.

The court’s opinion in the two cases was released a few minutes before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving.

Gorsuch filed a short, separate opinion in which he emphasized that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

Kavanaugh filed his own opinion, stressing that Wednesday’s ruling from the court is only a temporary one until the 2nd Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the dispute next month, can act on the case, followed – if necessary – by a decision on the merits by the justices.

Kavanaugh also pushed back on a point at the heart of a dissenting opinion filed by Roberts, who acknowledged that the restrictions in these cases “may well” violate the free exercise clause but maintained that the court did not need to decide that “serious and difficult question” now because the attendance limits no longer apply to the challengers. Kavanaugh countered that there is “no good reason” not to act now. If the houses of worship challenging the restrictions do not return to red or orange zones, he observed, then the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.” But if they do end up back in red or orange zones, the rulings will ensure that they are not subject to unconstitutional treatment.

Breyer filed his own dissenting opinion, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined. They agreed with Roberts that there is no need for the court to act now. But in any event, Breyer added, because of what we know about how the virus is transmitted, particularly when it comes to the increased risk of transmission at indoor activities at which people are in close contact with one another for extended periods of time, the question whether the attendance limits violate the Constitution is “far from clear.”

Sotomayor also filed a separate dissenting opinion, which Kagan joined. In her view, the challengers’ cases were “easier” than last summer’s challenges by churches in California and Nevada to shut-down orders and attendance limits because Cuomo’s order treats houses of worship more favorably than comparable secular gatherings. In a pointed rebuttal to Gorsuch’s opinion, Sotomayor agreed that states “may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles,” she stressed, “are not at stake today.”

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner

Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:00:00 GMT

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner-- by Dave Urbanski

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner. But he pries away weapon, fires, and hits both suspects — killing one of them. The other suspect was taken to jail after being released from the hospital.

Two men entered a home in Elk City, Oklahoma, sometime before 6 a.m. Saturday and went into a bedroom when one of the men pulled out a gun, pointed it at the homeowner's face, and demanded money, according to a document police provided to TheBlaze.

What happened next?

The homeowner told police he was afraid he would be killed, so he grabbed the handgun and pointed it away from his face. A struggle for the gun ensued, after which the homeowner told police the two men pinned him on the bed, the document states.

The homeowner told police that after he gained control of the gun, he fired it several times until the man who pointed it at him fell to the floor. The document also states that, according to the homeowner, the other man who was with the gun-wielding assailant ran out of the house.

That man — Isaiah Johnson, 25 — was shot in the chest during the struggle, the document from police states.

But he had quite a story for cops at the hospital later, telling them he heard shots while walking near the house on the 600 block of North Watkins, realized he was hit, and went to the hospital for treatment, the document states.

Soon, however, Johnson came clean.

Upon further questioning, he confessed that he knew the other suspect — Samuel Castro Jr., 39 — had a handgun before they entered the house and was intending to rob the victim, the document states. Johnson added to police after he heard the gunshots and felt pain in his chest, he fled the home and walked to the hospital. He also said he originally told cops he was hit while walking near the residence so that he might avoid being arrested, the document states.

Johnson was still in jail Tuesday afternoon, police told TheBlaze.

Isaiah JohnsonImage source: Elk City, Oklahoma, Police

Police found Castro's body surrounded by a large pool of blood in the bedroom where the struggle with the homeowner took place, the document says, adding that officers also observed a Walther .380 handgun on a small table in the bedroom.

A medical examiner investigator found several gunshot wounds on Samuel's body, the document adds.

Police on Tuesday would release no other information to TheBlaze.

Quite the wake-up call

Neighbors woke up Saturday to an abnormally large police presence.

"I saw five or six police cars; they had all alleys blocked off," Tristian Wooten told KWTV-DT. "Cones had the area shut off."

"They blocked off all in front of the tennis courts there that are to the south and then all the way at the north end of the block," neighbor Terry Jordan added to KWTV. "So you couldn't even really tell what house everything happened at."

"Something like this happens, it does hit pretty close to home," Wooten added to the station. "It does kind of make you wanna ... step up your guard a little bit more."

Jordan acknowledged to KWTV that "home invasion is kind of a whole different level" and "it's something you think about" since "as a homeowner" you want to keep your family safe.

The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress

Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:00:00 GMT

The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress by Harold Moskowitz

There is a long standing but growing problem facing our legislative process; self-interest of the legislators. When the Founders set up a government based upon virtue, it was expected that legislators would represent the interests of the district which elected them. The assumption was that after one or two terms these representatives would return to private life where they could pursue self-interest.

Today, it would be hard to find virtue in the Washington “Swamp.” Many in Congress have become “career politicians.” Personal interests are often represented, not those of the People. Many legislators - of both political parties - often enter Congress as “middle class” but after decades in office they and close family members often become multi-millionaires. During their time in office, their allegiance is often to the industries which funded their campaigns or contributed to their personal wealth. Financial connections to foreign-owned corporations also can affect their legislative functioning while in office. In addition, promises made before an election are often broken after the election.

After attaining retirement, with a large taxpayer funded pension, many become highly paid “lobbyists” representing the interests of the same industries which helped to fund their campaigns. The problem of allegiance to corporate interests is widespread and needs to be addressed through meaningful reforms.

There needs to be term limits added to the Constitution. In addition, there needs to be a stronger post-retirement “lobbying” law which would place restrictions on post-retirement “lobbying.” For instance, the law could prevent “lobbying” for ten years after the retirement date.

Those who claim that elections already serve the term-limiting function fail to realize the power of “name/face recognition” and, especially, the greater access to campaign funding for incumbents to aid in their reelection. There is already a two-term limit for Presidents. Why not for legislators?

Members of Congress will neither propose a term-limiting amendment nor pass one on to the states for ratification. When a new amendment is needed, the Framers gave us an alternative method for overcoming this type of resistance from Congress. Article V of the Constitution allows for the states, in lieu of Congress, to propose necessary amendments.

If important reforms are not made in our legislative process to deal with the growing threat of using public office for personal gain, then fewer citizens will think it necessary or worthwhile to be involved in the election process. Yet, now more than ever, the survival of our constitutional republic requires their involvement and participation.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!

Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:06:40 GMT

E.R. Patients to be asked if Gun at Home

(Past member) — Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:17:32 GMT

Long Island, NY — Three hospitals in Long Island are going to start collecting data on gun ownership from every single patient who comes in the door — regardless of their reason for being there.

[This could be bad news for gun owners in "Red Flag" states, like NY.]

Northwell Health system says they are going to “analyze the risks of gun ownership” by collecting the data in a $1.4 million dollar program they’re calling “We Ask Everyone About Guns.”

Catchy name.

Their public statement on the data collection explains that the hospital system plans to expand the study to all of their hospitals, but are starting with just three. Additionally, they liken the problem of ‘gun violence’ to a disease — thereby invoking funding for their research. [emphasis added]

The New Hyde Park-based health system said the grant is part of its “We Ask Everyone About Guns” research study, which approaches firearm injury risk similarly to other health risk factors that are part of routine care, like smoking, substance use and motor vehicle accidents.

“Gun violence is a public health issue,” said Michael J. Dowling, the president and chief executive at Northwell Health. “This is the health industry’s responsibility to talk about this and do something about it.”

This isn’t Northwell’s first foray into the gun control debate — or their first attempt to claim that gun violence is a disease. In 2019, the Hospital system posted the following statements on their blog:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a scientifically inaccurate statement, says Hargarten. Guns do not, in fact, kill people, but the bullets certainly do. “The kinetic energy from the bullet is the ‘agent,’ much like the HIV virus is the agent that causes AIDS,” he explains. “The bullet and the kinetic energy it transmits to the body tears and destroy cells and tissue, damages organs, breaks bones and leads to disability or death.”

The disease model, Hargarten says, is how researchers and public health and medical professionals studied and addressed the staggering numbers of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. “We scientifically investigated crashes and motor vehicle fatalities and learned that attenuating the kinetic energy release reduced injuries and death.” In other words, driving at slower speeds, requiring seatbelts and car seats, adding airbags, even redesigning on-ramps and road curves, contributed to a steep reduction in motor vehicle fatalities since the 1970s. With guns, Hargarten says, maybe interventions can include limiting the rate at which a gun can release bullets. Or limiting how many bullets it can release—aka restricting access to automatic weapons, “bump stocks,” and high-capacity magazines.

Back in 2019, the government granted the CDC a $25 million dollar budget to research the ‘gun violence’ epidemic. We pointed out at that time how ludicrous it is to liken gun violence to a disease. Bullets aren’t contagious, and there’s no genetic component or nutritional solution! You can’t kill a germ and make it go away.

But here we are, using tax-payer dollars to purchase science that backs up the anti-gun agenda. This isn’t science. It’s a politically motivated agenda that’s being advanced by our own tax dollars. [emphasis added]

New York State Has Red Flag Laws

Gun owners will remember that New York has already passed and implemented Red Flag Laws. That means that if a gun owner answers the questions their doctor is asking them truthfully –“Yes, I have guns in my home” and then expresses anger at the driver that just hit their car –sending them to the ER in the first place — they could get Red Flagged by their doctor that same day.

If you go to the ER for pneumonia and the doctor finds out you have guns as well as a prescription for an anti-depressant, they can Red Flag you as mentally unstable. If you are upset about the insane bill that you’ve gotten from the same hospital and call to complain to the billing department…..they’ll see on your chart that you are a gun owner and can have you Red Flagged for being angry on the phone.

The hospital isn’t bothering to look into why the state’s current gun control — which is some of the worst in the country — isn’t stopping violent crime. No, they’re going to pin this on law abiding gun owners and will manipulate the data to fit their agenda.

This anti-gun agenda is out of control and these Red Flag laws are unconstitutional in the extreme. This is a dangerous combination for gun owners in New York.

NY Senate Candidates’ Ratings on 2nd Amendment

Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:30:00 GMT

S.C.O.P.E.'s Candidates’ Ratings on the 2nd Amendment

Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court has stopped the never-ending attacks by those that would disarm our citizens and whittle away at the Constitution. It is imperative that we have political office holders who will preserve, protect and defend the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Toward that end, SCOPE has rated the following candidates as an “A” and believe they will work to preserve, protect and defend our right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution.

For the United States Congress from New York State:

District 1       Lee Zeldin

District 3       George Devolder-Santos

District 14     John Cummings

District 18     Chele Farley

District 19     Kyle Van De Water

District 20     Liz Joy

District 21     Elise Stefanik

District 22     Claudia Tenney

District 23     Tom Reed

District 24     John Katko

District 26     Ricky Donovan Sr

District 27     Chris Jacobs

  Listed below is any New York State Senate candidate that got an A rating from at least one of either SCOPE, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) or NRA-PVF (NRA).

District 1       Anthony Palumbo              SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 2       Mario Mattera                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 3       Alexis Weik                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 4       Philip Boyle                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 5       Edmund Smythe                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 6       Dennis Dunne                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 7       David Franklin                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 9       Victoria Johnson                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 15     Thomas Sullivan                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 22     Vito Bruno                            SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 23     Justin DeFillippo                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-?

District 24     Andrew Lanza                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 30     Oz Sultan                              SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 37     Liviu Saimovici                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 39     Steve Brescia                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 40     Rob Astorino                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 41     Susan Serino                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 42     Mike Martucci                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 43     Daphne Jordan                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 45     Dan Stec                               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 46     Richard Amedure               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 47     Joseph Grippo                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 48     Patricia Ritchie                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 49     James Tedisco                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 50     Angi Renna                           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 51     Peter Oberacker                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 52     Fred Ashkar                          SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 53     Sam Rogers                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 54     Pamela Helming                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 55     Christopher Missick           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 56     Michael Barry                      SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 57     George Borrello                  SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 58     Thomas O’Mara                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 59     Patrick Gallivan                   SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 60     Joshua Mertzlufft               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 61     Edward Rath                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 62     Rob Ortt                                SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

Click here to download a Pdf copy of this ratings list.

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15

Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:38:20 GMT

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15 by David Harsanyi, National Review

In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:

Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)

Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”

Contemporary legislators have the hubris to believe that the Founders hadn’t envisioned any kind of technological advances in firearm technology. It’s an argument tantamount to claiming that free-speech protections are not operable because James Madison couldn’t foresee the incredible speed with which information can be disseminated on the Internet.

Not only did legislators in the late 18th-century witness the advent and adoption of long-range Pennsylvania rifles — ones that could fire at 300 yards with decent precision rather than 50 yards with none — but they were likely acquainted with the existence of weapons such as air-powered repeating rifles that could fire .46-caliber lead balls about 40 times before losing muzzle velocity. No Founder ever said, “hey maybe we a mistake.” In fact, in the subsequent 150 years — through the rise of the revolver, the repeating rifle, and the gas-powered automatic weapons — no one ever challenged the idea that the Second Amendment protected anything but an individual right. Heller, the decision that so infuriated leftists, simply reaffirmed what had been obvious to everyone since 1789.

The Second Amendment is predicated on the principle that people have the right defend themselves and their liberties. The right to bear arms, in fact, is older than the right to free speech or freedom of religion. The English Bill of Rights, a document cataloging the crimes of James II and codifying the “ancient and indubitable” rights of English citizens in 1689, includes the right “arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Well, for Protestants. By 1765, William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system, wrote that “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Not one Founder mentioned anything about “hunting” or “skeet shooting” during the debates over the drafting of the Constitution.

The founding generation believed that firearms should be used to guarantee the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution — whether they were in the government or not. Thankfully, there is no need of insurrection now. But the presence of armed citizenry is always a good bulwark against tyranny. Just in case.

And a musket simply won’t do.

Register to Vote Online - Electronic Voter Registration Application

Thu, 08 Oct 2020 12:08:03 GMT

Friday, October 9th. is the deadline!

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections. The last day to register to vote in the upcoming General Election is October 9, 2020.

Online

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections.

Updated information could include providing your County or City Board of Elections with your new name, new address, or changing a party enrollment. We forward completed applications to the appropriate County or City Board of Elections for approval and processing. Learn more about Electronic Voter Registration.

To register you will need

your New York State DMV issued driver license, permit or Non-Driver ID
- it must be your most recently issued document - you will need the ID Number and document number (See Sample Documents)
the ZIP Code currently on record with the DMV
the last 4 digits of your Social Security Number (SSN)

If you are having trouble registering online

Make sure you enter

your document number correctly - it's easy to mix characters, like the number '1' for the letter 'I'
the ZIP Code we currently have on record (we might not be aware of a recent move)

If you created MyDMV account before, you can log into that to access the voter registration application.

If you do not have your most recent New York State DMV issued identification (license, permit or non-driver ID) or were never issued a New York State DMV identification document, you cannot register online through DMV. You will need to register by mail or in person.

By mail

To register by mail, visit the New York State Board of Elections website to download a Voter Registration Form. The form provides the mailing address for your local Board of Elections.

In person

You can register to vote at your county board of elections, or at a New York State Agency - Based registration center. The New York State Board of Elections website has. Visit the Voter Registration webpage at the New York State Board of Elections for more information.

What happens to my voter registration application?

The electronic voter registration application is transferred from DMV to your County or City Board of Elections for review. Once processed, your County or City will notify you either that you are registered to vote or additional information is needed to complete your application. (Please allow up to six weeks to hear from the Board of Elections in your County or City. If after 6 weeks you have not heard from them, contact them at the phone number or address provided on the New York State Board of Elections website.)

The DMV does not approve or deny voter registration applications. We only send the application to the County or City Board of Elections for their review.

NY Hospital Study: Shilling for the SAFE Act?

Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:39:13 GMT

Northwell Health, the largest health system and largest private employer in New York State, has announced a research study called, bizarrely, “We Ask Everyone. Firearm Safety is a Health Issue.” The project will require, as part of routine screening of emergency room patients, asking questions about firearm ownership and guns in the home. Implementation will begin at three Northwell hospitals initially (two on Long Island and one on Staten Island), with plans to expand the program to include “inpatient and ambulatory settings” across all of its facilities.

One of the physicians heading the project states that the objective of the universal screening is to create “opportunities for patients to speak with their trusted clinical teams about firearm safety and recognize firearm safety as a health care issue,” and that, “by asking the right questions and providing the right education and connections to resources,” the project “can prove to be a significant tool in fighting the gun violence epidemic.”

Northwell Health has reportedly refused to disclose what the questions will be, although the responses will be “scored and embedded into the patient’s electronic health record,” and used to “establish next steps for care.”

It’s not clear how this squares with the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300gg-17(c), and the prohibition against a health care provider, a wellness and prevention plan manager, or a health, wellness or prevention services organization requiring disclosure of or collecting information on lawful ownership of firearms or firearms stored or kept in a residence, but the program is being funded by a $1.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Residents of the Empire State need to understand how “We Ask Everyone” dovetails with an existing law on mandatory mental health reporting and disarming gun owners.

Under 2013’s SAFE Act, the drastic gun control legislation passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, an amendment to the state Mental Hygiene Law created a mandatory reporting requirement for mental health professionals. Physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, and licensed clinical social workers providing treatment services are now required to report any client that, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, the treatment provider considers “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” If a local government official agrees with the report, the report must be shared with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to disarm persons in possession of a state firearms license and guns.

The law confines the use of the report exclusively to the question of the person’s ability to own or possess firearms; it is not used for treatment or to safeguard other persons who may be at risk.

Persons who have been reported do not have access to the report or to the name of the reporting treatment provider. There is no due process, hearing, adjudication of mental illness or determination of dangerousness, or a requirement for a court order. Once the division of criminal justice services is notified, if the person has a firearm license or has applied for one, the license is automatically revoked, and the person must surrender the license and all firearms, or the firearms will be confiscated by law enforcement. The whole scheme rests on an assertion by a treatment provider that cannot be challenged by the person affected.

Many in the mental health care community resented being transformed into agents of the state and questioned the effectiveness of the law. The New York State Psychiatric Association, an association representing psychiatrists practicing in the state that “supports gun control measures in general,” opposed the reporting requirement and its focus on guns rather than mental health: “Following discussions with OMH [New York State Office of Mental Health] staff, it has become clear that the intent of the SAFE Act reporting requirement is solely to limit access to legal firearms and not to protect individuals from imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

A New York Times article published the year after the requirement became law confirmed there were significant failures in design and implementation. First, the “threshold for reporting is so low” that “frontline mental health workers feel compelled to routinely report mentally ill patients brought to an emergency room.” The resulting volume of reports meant that local health officials were rubber-stamping reports, with no effective oversight or review before a report was passed on to the division of criminal justice services. There was also no way to verify independently whether the law was being applied appropriately and whether the individuals being reported did in fact pose a risk of serious harm.

By 2014, over 34,000 individuals had been reported under this SAFE Act provision; another source suggests that as of late 2015, about 2,000 New Yorkers a month were being added to the database. The Times article observed that “the overwhelming majority of reports from mental health professionals are coming from hospitals … with an emergency room and inpatient psychiatric services.”

Under the Northwell project, regardless of the reason a person presents themselves at the emergency room –food poisoning, car accident, or COVID -19 – the patient will face questioning about guns. In a public health context where firearms are viewed as unhealthy and gun ownership as pathological, it isn’t terribly hard to imagine how this information may be used to support a claim that a gun owner “is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

While New York’s website advises that the SAFE Act “should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need,” the reality is that it forces gun owners to choose between getting such treatment and retaining their gun rights, and makes everyone less safe. “We Ask Everyone” implicates the same dysfunctional dynamic.

A Closer Look at Kamala Harris’ Second Amendment Record

Wed, 09 Sep 2020 14:06:09 GMT

A Closer Look at Kamala Harris’ Second Amendment Record by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020

Though the mainstream media and its flock of so-called “fact-checkers” might be intent on sanitizing Kamala Harris’ stance on the Second Amendment before the election on November 3, her words have left little to the imagination when it comes to how far she is willing to go to disarm you.

Like the vast majority of her party in 2020, Harris has advocated for more regulation when it comes to such policy matters as “universal” background checks and outlawing whole classes of firearms, including naming specific makes and models of popular rifles. Harris even co-sponsored Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) latest attempt at an “assault-weapons” ban.

During an appearance on comedian Jimmy Fallon’s show in September last year, amid her own failed Presidential bid, Senator Harris (D-Calif.) explained her push for “mandatory buybacks,” a politically correct euphemism for confiscation, as “mandatory” means you must comply.

“They are weapons of war with no place on the streets of a civil society. I've seen assault weapons kill babies and police officers,” said Harris.

A month later, at a March for Our Lives-hosted “gun-safety” event, Harris declared that “we have to have a buyback program.”

“And I support a buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way,” she said. “But there are five million (assault weapons) at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

Can her desire be more explicit?

Throughout the presidential campaign she eventually abandoned, Harris claimed that she would evade the legislative branch to achieve her objectives. During one debate, she said, “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”

But even the mainstream media, which typically supports a staunch anti-gun agenda, have been busily trying to softenHarris’s image when it comes to firearms; perhaps these media members realize that her harsh stance could turn away the millions of new gun owners now endeavoring the protect themselves and their families.

After a Facebook post of a private citizen erroneously attributing a gun confiscation quote to Harris made the rounds this past month, USA Today and Snopes jumped on board with a “false” fact rating. Technically, their assessment is defensible, but the idea that Harris does not support a plan to take firearms from the homes of gun owners isn’t exactly a given.

If a “mandatory buyback” of “assault weapons,” a term that can only be defined politically, was indeed enacted under a Biden-Harris administration, wouldn’t law enforcement be used if some people did not comply?

In 2018, at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Harris said she was for “common-sense” laws, and claimed that “it’s a false choice to suggest that you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”

But under the national spotlight, Harris has dropped any nuance on the issue and is now publicly in favor of every flavor of gun control that has thus far been dreamed up by the left.

(America's First Freedom, NRA, by Susanne Edward, September 4, 2020)

New Gun Law Takes Effect

Thu, 03 Sep 2020 18:05:27 GMT

New Gun Law Takes Effect – Intoxicated While Hunting

Last fall in 2019 Governor Cuomo signed a law that lowers the legal blood alcohol threshold while hunting from 0.10 to 0.08, similar to the current level for operating a car or boat. The penalty remains the same. The law just took effect September 1st, 2020.

Anyone convicted of hunting while intoxicated stands to lose their hunting-related licenses for a period not to exceed two years. The crime is classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to, but not more than one year in jail, and/or a fine of no more than $500.

Gov. Whitmer Proudly Wipes Out Wolverine State Gun Stores

(Past member) — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:15:19 GMT

Posted on August 7, 2020 by AmmoLand Editor Jim Grant

By Larry Keane

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Everytown for Gun Safety continued its Veepstakes auditions as Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined Shannon Watts to talk about her gun control credentials.

Gov. Whitmer’s highlight of the event was boasting about putting 6,600 Michiganders in the firearm and ammunition industry out of work by deeming them “non-essential” during the coronavirus pandemic. Most of their industry peers across the United States could remain on the job. Gov. Whitmer, though, shuttered gun businesses in her state and was proud of it on her Everytown Veepstakes tryout with Shannon Watts.

“I would do it again. I absolutely stand by the decision that I made,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I’m not going to apologize. And I’m not going to be bullied into doing things differently…It was very clear, the purchase of a gun does not fall in that [life-sustaining] criteria.”

Should she be 2020 presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, Gov. Whitmer would fit the ticket. Former Vice President Biden’s antigun track record is well-known and he’s had his own run-in with Michigan gun owners, scolding one Detroit Second Amendment supporter, saying “You’re full of sh*t!” Together the two would make for the most antigun presidential ticket in modern history.

For Safety and Security

Watts dismissed concerns Michiganders have for their personal safety. She went as far as labeling the more than 2.5 million Americans who bought a gun for the first time as just “the gun extremist community.” Gov. Whitmer blamed President Donald Trump.

“That is just the kind of dog-whistle that always makes me fearful that we’ll have more violence break out across the country.” She glossed over the numerous examples of law-abiding Americans protecting themselves, their families, their businesses, and their neighbors.

For her part, Gov. Whitmer supports reinstating the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and gun control grab bag favorites like “red flag” laws that deny due process to the accused, closing loopholes that are in fact just the Second Amendment and more. There’s just one problem keeping her from getting her way – voters.

“I can’t just change these laws on my own,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I need a legislature to work with me. I don’t have a legislature that is very friendly when it comes to working on this issue.”

Gov. Whitmer is correct, though she did not make the point she thought she was making.

Biden and Beyond in November

Gov. Whitmer praised Biden’s candidacy and what it could mean for stricter gun control.

“With Joe Biden in the White House we’re going to have a leader who makes decisions based on the best information there is, so that we have higher odds of achieving all the goals that he’s running on,” Gov. Whitmer told Watts. “He’s the perfect candidate at this time.”

Former Vice President Biden’s gun control “goals” also include appointing former U.S. Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-Texas) as his chief gun-grabbing sheriff to confiscate 18 million of the most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifles in America. His ‘leadership’ includes telling his wife to blindly fire a shotgun into the air without knowing the target and suggesting police try their best to shoot threatening armed attackers in the leg. He called the firearm industry “the enemy” and wants to dismantle it.

Not everyone agrees with Biden or Gov. Whitmer on these extremist ideas. An NSSF survey of likely voters in 18 battleground states, including Michigan, showed that enforcing existing gun laws and protecting lawful firearm sales are at the top of their minds heading into November. NSSF regularly updates the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters don’t risk their rights in the ballot box.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

About the NRA-ILA

(Past member) — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:10:33 GMT

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

New Gun Bills Signed by Gov. Cuomo

Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:05:02 GMT

From Gun Politics in NY: A-8078C, Permits 4-H certified shooting sports instructors to supervise and instruct persons under sixteen years of age at shooting ranges, and A-8666A, Relates to authorizing hunting big game by rifle in the County of Tompkins, have been signed by Governor Cuomo.

SCOPE's Amicus Brief to the Court on Large Capacity Magazines

Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:09:18 GMT

2nd Amendment supporters are very happy about a California Appeals Court decision concerning "large capacity magazines". S.C.O.P.E. contributed to this victory with an Amicus Brief (Friend of the Court). There is a link to it here if you would care to read it.

Amicus Brief

S.C.O.P.E. hopes that by winning this appeal at this level, it will set the stage for an eventual Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of all these magazine restrictions, especially here in New York. Unfortunately, appeals move slowly through the court system and it may be awhile before we know its ultimate fate.

Judge ruled to be "without authority"

(Past member) — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:35:36 GMT

The Second Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of a Rockland County gun owner who had twice applied to have the restrictions removed from his pistol permit and receive an unrestricted pistol permit.

His requests were denied on both occasions and the judge whom he petitioned not only denied his application for an unrestricted permit but also instructed the petitioner not to reapply for at least one year.

The judge’s [licensing agent] decision that “enjoined the petitioner from applying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year” was overruled concluding “…the licensing agent was without authority to bar the petitioner from reapplying for an unrestricted pistol permit for one year “.

"A party may forfeit the right to access the courts if he or she 'abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will'. Here, however, the injunction was not imposed by a court but by a judge acting as a licensing agent (see Penal Law 265.00[10]) in a quasi judicial capacity. The issuance of the injunction was beyond the scope of his powers to either deny or grant the application (see Penal Law 400.00[4-a]."

Despite still being without an unrestricted permit, this gun owner [and others], are not mandated to wait a specified time before reapplying. This sets a precedent statewide.

California’s Ban on Large Capacity Magazines “Goes Too Far” -- Ninth Circuit Strikes Ban as Unconstitutional

Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:34:20 GMT

(NRA-ILA) In Duncan v. Becerra, a case supported by the NRA, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that California’s ban on the possession of “large capacity magazines”(LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

The decision affirms a ruling last March by Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who ruled, unequivocally, that the California law was unconstitutional.

The panel’s lengthy and considered opinion was written by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the California ban was constitutional.

The case centers on California Penal Code §32310, which prior to 2016, imposed restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to add an outright ban prohibiting nearly everyone in the state from possessing such magazines. California residents who owned LCMs were given the option of removing the magazine from the state, selling it to a firearms dealer, permanently modifying the magazine so that it was incapable of holding over ten rounds, or surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to a year.

Judge Lee, who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Trump last year, begins by observing that California’s near-total ban of LCMs “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment –the right to armed self defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”California’s law not only banned standard-issue magazines for many handguns commonly used for self defense, but made “half of all magazines in America …unlawful to own in California.”

Using a two-prong test to determine the constitutional validity of Cal. Penal Code §32310, the court first asked whether the law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment; if so, the second inquiry focused on the appropriate level of review (level of scrutiny) to apply in evaluating the law.

Under the first prong, the court found the law did burden protected conduct. LCMs were “arms”protected by the Second Amendment “for a simple reason”–without a magazine, many weapons, including “quintessential”self defense weapons like handguns, “would be useless.”LCMs were neither dangerous nor unusual, and firearms or magazines “holding more than ten rounds have been in existence –and owned by American citizens –for centuries.”LCMs had “never been subject to longstanding prohibitions”on possession or use.

Not only did Section 32310 “strike[] at core Second Amendment rights”by prohibiting LCMs for self-defense within the home, “any law that comes close to categorically banning the possession of arms that are commonly used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.”

Significantly, in the second prong determination of the appropriate level of review, the court selected strict scrutiny, the highest possible level, as the proper standard. Strict scrutiny requires that a state law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. While the government interests here were compelling, a “statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone”was not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means. The law failed even if a less demanding level of scrutiny was applied, and for many of the same reasons –a lack of anything approximating a reasonable fit between the restrictions imposed and the government’s asserted objectives.

Addressing California’s “implicit suggestion that the Second Amendment deserves less protection”than other fundamental rights, the court rejected this outright. The Second Amendment is not some outdated “relic relevant only during the era of Publius and parchments. It is a right that is exercised hundreds of times on any given day”by law abiding Americans, including women fleeing abusive relationships, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities who are disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, and communities of color that “have a particularly compelling interest”in exercising Second Amendment rights.”The Second Amendment “provides one last line of defense”when the state cannot or will not “step in to protect them.”“We mention these examples,”declared Judge Lee, “to drive home the point that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,”nor is “self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.”

The ruling is a gratifying one by the Ninth Circuit, a court that, in past rulings, has been not especially protective of the Second Amendment.

It is anticipated that the State of California will seek en banc review of this ruling. Your NRA will keep you updated on the developments in this important case.

Ninth Circuit Striking Down California’s Large Capacity Ban is a Victory for All Gun Owners

Sat, 15 Aug 2020 01:57:52 GMT

TTAG CONTRIBUTOR , |August 14, 2020

The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing a ruling by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) violates the Second Amendment.

“While this was not our case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “this is a victory for all gun owners, and the majority opinion reflects our arguments in an amicus brief we submitted along with several other organizations. Most importantly, the panel majority used strict scrutiny to make its determination, and that is a huge milestone.”

The case is known as Duncan v. Becerra. The 66-page majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

SAF was joined in its amicus brief by the California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Armed Equality, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, and California County Gun Owners.

In his ruling, Judge Lee observed, “We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.”

California had banned possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.

“This was a fantastic ruling,” Gottlieb observed. “The court went into considerable detail about the history of magazine development and essentially follows the logic of our amicus, for which we are all very proud.”

9th Circuit ends California ban on high-capacity magazines

Sat, 15 Aug 2020 00:39:51 GMT

By TERI FIGUEROA, August 14, 2020, 12:59 PM

Judges Rule California High-Capacity Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
Moving Forward

In a resounding win for West Coast gun owners, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court threw out the California high-capacity magazine ban Friday, calling it unconstitutional. A three-judge panel said the rule violates Americans’ right to bear arms.

The ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez in Duncan v Becerra. That decision ruled California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The National Shooting Sports Federation, NSSF, among others, also submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ challenge.

“This is a tremendous victory for all who value the rule of law and preservation of individual liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of General Counsel. “The firearm industry trade association was confident that possession of these accessories is protected by the Second Amendment and that California overreached to infringe upon the fundamental civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. This serves as notice to antigun politicians that their campaign to trample on constitutional rights and advance a radical agenda to deny citizens’ their Second Amendment rights will not go unchallenged.”

“California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today’s post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount,” wrote Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

“California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense,” Lee continued.

The ruling obviously represents a big step for California as far as gun rights are concerned. The Associated Press reported:

California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel called it “a huge victory” for gun owners “and the right to choose to own a firearm to defend your family.”

The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions, though it immediately applies only to Western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction.

California AG Xavier Becerra didn’t confirm whether he would ask the full appellate court to reconsider the ruling, reported nbcnewyork.com. However, industry experts expect continuing litigation to keep the California high-capacity magazine ban legally considered unconstitutional.

REPORT: St. Louis Detectives ‘Balked’ At McCloskey Docs, Refused To Sign Off On Prosecutors’ Demands

Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:59:33 GMT

By Emily Zanotti Aug 6, 2020

Documents and voicemails obtained by a local St. Louis NBC affiliate show that detectives investigating Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple that pointed weapons at Black Lives Matter protesters who entered their gated community in search of the St. Louis mayor’s house, “balked” at prosecutors’ decision to charge the McCloskeys and initially refused to sign off on prosecutors documents.

The lead prosecutor, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf, also told prosecutors that police believed at least one protester was armed and others were wearing bulletproof vests, based on what they gleaned from security footage and other available videos.

00:03

00:56

“The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted, according to a review of those documents obtained by 5 On Your Side,” the NBC affiliate reported late last week, adding that prosecutors appeared to be pressuring police to serve a search warrant on the McCloskey residents — a warrant that eventually turned up the weapons Mark McCloskey was wielding in a now-viral video.

Lawyers for Patricia McCloskey turned in her weapon to authorities days later. It was inoperable when submitted to law enforcement.

“At this point, everything points to these weapons being real and loaded, but no one has asked or confirmed,” the prosecutor wrote to police, demanding that the cops seize the McCloskeys guns. “Come trial, they’ll say they were waiving around a BB gun and an air rifle.”

The prosecutor, Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley, also wrote to the lead detective’s commander trying to pressure detectives to move forward with the case.

“Our office is receiving inquiries from the public and press about a warrant application and potential charges. We’ve thus far said the matter ‘remains under investigation.’ I’d really like to avoid pointing to a police follow-up request as the hold-up, but I won’t control the messaging if this goes on any longer. Please see what you can do to help this along. Again, I’m asking for priority on the firearms issue,” he said.

“Hinckley also wrote the document the lead detective did sign, known as the probable cause statement,” NBC reported. “But it went through at least two revisions after Burgdorf outlined 14 concerns he had about the document, 5 On Your Side has learned.”

Specifically, Bergdorf objected to prosecutors’ claim that the McCloskeys confronted a “peaceful protest,” and that prosecutors used the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault” rifle, noting that those were non-specific “propaganda” terms. In addition, Bergdorf also corrected claims prosecutors made that weren’t borne out by evidence available to law enforcement, including that protesters went through an “open gate” and that Mark McCloskey’s gun was “visibly loaded.”

Bergdorf also insisted that the McCloskeys may have been correct in their assessment that protesters were armed and dangerous.

Some of the phrases [Bergdorf] was able to decipher from the footage collected by prosecutors from protesters included:

“You own a business. Your business is gone.”

“We coming back baby.”

“You ain’t the only (expletive) with a gun.”

“They coming back to your house.”

Although the McCloskeys have been charged, there is continuing controversy over the case, much of it aimed at St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, whom McCloskey allies claim targeted the couple for political reasons.

Who/What is Black Lives Matter

Thu, 06 Aug 2020 12:29:51 GMT

Who / What is Black Lives Matter

S.C.O.P.E. was formed as an educational organization to defend the Constitution and especially the 2^nd Amendment. Towards that end, we would like our members to know some facts about what is behind the social upheaval that is attempting to destroy the benefits - such as the 2^nd Amendment - that we all have enjoyed under the Constitution.

Black Lives Matter might be viewed as a grassroots movement of concerned people gathering together. It is much more.

Black Lives Matter is a corporation whose real name is Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF). (Yep…it’s one of those capitalistic corporations they profess to hate.)

The following information is on their web site. It’s a nationwide corporation! BLMGNF has chapters in: Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Lansing, Long Beach, Memphis, Nashville, New York City, Philadelphia, South Bend and in Canada in Toronto, Vancouver and Waterloo. (If you were impressed by how all those recent riots erupted simultaneously from a grassroots movement…well…maybe not so grassroots.)

BLMGNF is a not-for-profit corporation but not tax exempt, so donations are not tax deductible. Except...if you go to its website and want to donate, you are transferred to ActBlue Charities which will take your donation, give you a tax deduction, and then distribute your donation to BLMGNF. Sort of…

Who is ActBlue?

Taken directly from ActBlue’s web page, “Our (ActBlue) platform is available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations. And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations”.

ActBlue consists of three parts: ActBlue Charities facilitates donations to left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofits; Act Blue Civics is its 501(c)(4) affiliate; ActBlue is a 527 Political Action Committee. These three have raised over $5 billion dollars in the sixteen years since it started. If its 3.95% transaction fee has been applied to all donations, that equates to over $197 million.

So, ActBlue is a Democratic Party front affiliated with BLMGNF. If only it was that simple and stopped there.

Per Business Insider Australia, “ActBlue…distributes the money raised to Thousand Currents, which is then granted to Black Lives Matter”.

What is Thousand Currents (Formerly International Development Exchange)?

Again, per Business insider Australia, “Thousand Currents is a 501(3)(c) non-profit that provides grants to organizations that are...developing alternative economic models…”. (Is anarchy now an alternative economic model?)

“Thousand Currents essentially acts as a quasi-manager for Black Lives Matter: ‘It provides administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance,’ (Executive Director Solome) Lemma said”. (Finance, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance? It sounds like General Motors!)

What’s the significance of the above?

Black Lives Matter is not some fly-by-night fad that is going to loot and destroy and then disappear into the ash heap of history. It’s a multi corporation, big business which is heavily associated with and supports the Democratic Party and it is here to stay. Arguing whether Black Lives or All Lives Matter is meaningless and distracts us from what it is trying to achieve. It is a left-wing political movement that will have a significant impact on the Democratic Party programs for the foreseeable future.

Socialism and Communism are intimately linked to these efforts while the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights have no place in their plans. Patrisse Cullors, one of Black Lives Matter’s co-founders is widely reported as saying, “We are trained Marxists”.

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter said that if the movement fails to achieve meaningful change during nationwide protests, it will “burn down this system.” Not the peaceful change we celebrate under our Constitution but violent change. For those of us who like our Constitution, this is a challenge thrown in our face.

If you have wondered why politicians have danced around criticizing Black Lives Matter, now you know.

Sources of this information:
*HTTPS://INFLUENCEWATCH.ORG/NON-PROFIT/BLACK-LIVES-MATTER-FOUNDATION/

* HTTPS://BLACKLIVES MATTER.COM (Chapters; Current Chapters)

* HTTPS://BLACKLIVES MATTER.COM (Donate)

* HTTPS://SECURE.ACTBLUE.COM/DONATE/MS_BLM_HOMEPAGE_2019

* HTTPS://SUPPORT.ACTBLUE.COM/DONORS/ABOUT-ACTBLUE/WHAT-IS-THE-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN- ACTBLUE-ACTBLUE-CIVICS-AB-CHARITIES-AND-ACTBLUE-TECHNICAL-SERVICES/

* HTTPS://WWW.REDSTATE.COM/ELIZABETH-VAUGHN/2020/06/12/854023/

* HTTPS://THOUSANDCURRENTS.ORG

* HTTPS://WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM.AU/WHAT-IS-THOUSAND-CURRENTS-BLACK-LIVES-MATTER-CHARITY-2020-6

* HTTPS://NYPOST.COM/2020/06/25/BLM-CO-FOUNDER-DESCRIBES-HERSELF-AS-TRAINED-MARXIST/

* HTTPS://WWW.WASHINGTONTIMES.COM/NEWS/2020/JUNE/25/PATRISSE-CULLORS-BLACK-LIVES-MATTER-CO-FOUNDER-FEA/

* HTTPS://NYPOST.COM/2020/06/25/BLM-LEADER-IF-CHANGE-DOESNT-HAPPEN-WE-WILL-BURN-DOWN-THIS-SYSTEM/

THE CHICAGO GUN MYTH

(Past member) — Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:05:49 GMT

David HarsanyiJuly 27, 2020 4:12 PM

Politicians blame out-of-state sellers, but the real problem lies at home.

The tragically incompetent mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union this weekend to deflect attention from the horror show unfolding in her city by blaming interlopers for its spiking murder rate: “We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons — that is hurting cities like Chicago.”

Although these accusations have leveled by Chicago politicians for decades now, they are a myth.

For one thing, there is no state in the nation with “virtually no gun control” or “no background checks.” Every time anyone in the United States purchases a gun from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — a gun store, a gun show, it doesn’t matter — the seller runs a background check on the buyer through the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. In some cases, the FFL checks to see if the buyer has passed a background check via a state-issued concealed-carry permit. In states that allow individual private sales, it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone who you believe is obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.

Those who cross state lines to buy guns undergo the same background check, and the sale is processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state. The exact same laws apply to all online sales.

The vast majority of Americans obtain their guns in this manner, and they rarely commit crimes. Around 7 percent of criminals in prison bought weapons using their real names. Fewer than 1 percent obtained them at gun shows. As the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer points out, there have been around 18 million concealed-carry permit holders over the past 15 years, and they have committed 801 firearm-related homicides over that span, or somewhere around 0.7 percent of all firearm-related murders. Concealed-carry holders not only are more law-abiding than the general population as a group; they are more law-abiding than law enforcement.

Studies of those imprisoned on firearms charges show that most often they obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them in black markets. A smaller percentage get them from family members or friends.

On top of all this, federal law requires every FFL license holder to report the purchase of two or more handguns by the same person with a week to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This is one of the reasons straw purchasers — people with a clean record who buy for criminals — spread their operations to other states. This is not unique to Illinois or Chicago. It has nothing to do with strict or lenient laws. It has mostly to do with cities and states failing to prosecute straw purchases.

Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.

The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.

Then, of course, the “assault-weapons bans” that Lightfoot brings up have absolutely no bearing on Chicago’s murder rate, even if such prohibitions actually worked. There were 864 murders in the state of Illinois in 2018 (the last year for which the FBI has full stats). Of homicides where the type of weapon is reported by law enforcement, 592 were perpetrated using handguns, 14 with rifles, and four with shotguns. Over 100 murders were committed using knives, other cutting instruments, hands, feet, and other types of weapons. And of the 14 “rifles” used, it’s almost surely the case that not all of them were “assault weapons.” Among the illegal guns recovered by Chicago law enforcement in 2018, 12,220 were handguns of some kind and 1,769 were rifles and shotguns.

In the states in Illinois’s neighborhood with no bans on “assault weapons,” the number of murders committed with a “rifle” is correspondingly small — ten in Indiana, eight in Tennessee, six in Kentucky, four in Wisconsin, and three in Mississippi.

It’s also worth pointing out that gun homicides dropped sharply in most cities after the national “assault weapons” expired in 2004, even though the AR-15 would correspondingly become one of the most popular weapons in the country. The AR-15 is an excellent home-defense weapon, but long guns aren’t conducive to criminality, despite what we see in movies. Tragically, AR-15s are often favored by psychotic mass shooters, but rarely by the murderers who plague Lightfoot’s city.

It keeps getting worse. Nearly 400 people have already been murdered in Chicago this year, around 100 more than in the entire year of 2019. On the night of May 29, 25 people were murdered and another 85 wounded by gunfire, more than any day in 60 years. And yet the mayor is appearing on TV to blame Mississippi and Texas. It is far more likely that black-market guns find their way to Chicago because the place has been a poorly run criminal mecca for decades.

Ghost Guns and Gun Control

(Past member) — Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:40:51 GMT

Both the Constitution and the Gun Control Act allow Americans to manufacture their own firearms for their own personal use. “Personal use” is the key. Such guns are often referred to as “ghost guns” since they have no serial number and do not need to be registered.

The fact is only 5 out of the 50 states require registration of firearms which might fall into this category. New York is one of these states. Counties have long been established as the centers of handgun registrations and the system works well. Let's leave well enough alone.

There is no registration system [nor should there be] for long guns in New York. Unfortunately, NY State became involved in the registration of rifles following passage of the so-called “SAFE” Act in 2013. These are commonly owned semi-automatic rifles misconstrued as “assault weapons” by many. Statistics show that the most common “assault weapons” utilized in crimes are actually body parts…hands, feet and even sneakers according to a judge in one Upstate county.

The state lost a court case and was forced to divulge that a mere 5% of the estimated number of so-called “assault weapons” in NY were registered. Undoubtedly this was an embarrassment to state officials.

Law-abiding NY State citizens are not fond of registrations, regardless of the item being registered. Firearms are considered private property and these citizens resent any government regulation of such.

“Ghost gun” parts can be used to fabricate a handgun or even an AR-15. The parts are widely available across the country in stores and online. Law-abiding citizens can legally buy an unfinished lower receiver without a background check. Ghost guns have been mainly popular with gun enthusiasts but have also become a weapon of choice for criminals. But such behavior is not the fault of law-abiding citizens.

Criminals by nature do not obey laws. Why make law-abiding citizens pay the price for criminal behavior? Why must layer upon layer of gun control laws be passed when many are never enforced or are valueless?

Legislators commonly ask: “what type of gun control laws can I support.” Sorry, but this is the wrong question to ask. Consider the following as an aid to decision making:

1) Start with principle: No one’s freedom should depend on the behavior of the lawless or the ineptitude of government.

Liberals, the Left, Progressives offer one solution — ban “assault weapons” which, in video clip after video clip, they cannot define. The Florida shootings show the failure of government agencies at every level: federal, state, and local. And the proposed fix is to give more power to the institutions that drove the truck into the ditch?

2) So what can we do? Address root causes of violence — but this requires hard work! Remember “assault weapons” were banned under President Clinton, with no impact. Begin with facts:
§ “More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence,” states David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Check the source: “The Assault Weapon Myth,” The New York Times, Sept. 14, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
§ Harden the Schools — we protect airports and government buildings, don’t we? Here are specifics: 7 Simple Steps to Eliminate School Shootings Overnight, Townhall, Feb. 18, 2018 https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380
§ Raise your voice about the connection between media and violence — here’s a secret: the news industry knows there is a connection when it comes to teen suicide, because all evidence indicates such coverage triggers more suicides. They don’t talk about it; so ask them. For years, the news industry has followed a self-imposed restriction to NOT give extensive coverage to teen suicides. If you acknowledge that, the rest of the train comes with it (i.e., hyped news coverage of other violent acts triggers more violence). Reference: http://reportingonsuicide.org/
§ Be proactive: Recommend where society should put its resources — that is a teachable moment. For example, if we assess social risk factors, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) does not even list homicide among its top 10 causes of deaths. According to the CDC, the top 3 causes of all annual deaths (about 2 million) are:
o Heart disease (633,842)
o Cancer (595,930) and
o Chronic lower respiratory diseases (155,041) -- bronchitis, emphysema, COPD. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
§ What about firearms? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2016, there were an estimated 17,250 total homicides (by all means). How many homicides were committed with a firearm: 15,000 (in round numbers). Reference link: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2016 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/murder
§ What about other risk benchmarks — such as prescription drugs and lethal medical mistakes. If society wants to target significant public health risks, the combined estimate of deaths due to lethal medical mistakes and overdosing on prescription drugs is as high as one-half million per year — 33 times greater than total homicides (by all means). A staggering public health risk.
§ Prescription Drug Painkillers — DEA link: http://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml
§ Lethal medical mistakes — Reference link: Journal of Patient Safety -- http://patientsafetyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/A_New_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.pdf
3) What about the news media? Worried about negative coverage if you don’t get in line? In fact, the news industry has more to worry about — collapsing trust & collapsing business model.
§ Sixty-eight percent of Americans now say they have little or no trust in the press, according to Gallup which has tracked response to this question annually since 1997 (long before President Trump’s tweets, by the way). Tracking polls are a big deal. Gallup calls that “a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.” Polls often make "front page" news — except this one. Why? Reference link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

Finally, looking for a role model for how to respond to questions when you defend freedom? Watch Governor Bevins of Kentucky handle a question about “school violence.” No dancing, no bluster, but a firm, polite response — bone-deep belief. Wow. We need more like him in office.

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/multimedia/video/news/youtube_c2674705-960f-52ed-b8d8-9d2c34d514e4.html

How Big Tech Is Censoring Gun Rights

(Past member) — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:49:45 GMT

By: José Niño

In 2020, gun owners have many enemies.

It’s no secret that government entities pose threats to those of us who exercise our Second Amendment rights. Just taking a look at the bills filed in your state legislature can give you an idea of the lengths anti-gunners will go to strip us of our civil liberties.

In the Trump era, there have seen some interesting changes in the way the gun control crowd has changed their strategy. Having been largely shut out of power in D.C., gun control organizations have logically shifted their energy to lower levels of government, such as state legislatures and city councils.

Seasoned political operatives understand the importance of building political power bases at all levels of governments. This kind of work is what leads to major victories further down the line. But the forces of gun control have not just limited their efforts to traditional political activism. They are now operating outside of the conventional realm of politics by using corporate America to advance anti-gun causes.

Big Tech has been at the vanguard of this privatized form of persecution levied at Second Amendment supporters. Just look at Karl Kasarda, who ran the YouTube channel InRange TV. Fox News reported his channel “was wiped without warning in early 2018.” Kasarda pulled no punches when he talked about Big Tech’s suffocating control over political discourse:

"The issue of oligarchical control over the Internet and all the impact over the ability to use it for free speech is going to only get worse.”

Kasarda referred to the "big five" — Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube — as the main actors behind the recent wave of digital censorship directed towards the Second Amendment community and similar right-wing groups.

"It is unclear what the rules are," Kasarda said. "Specifically, with YouTube, they pretty much enforce whatever they feel based on their bias of the day. Regardless of your personal belief, firearms and their accessories are legal in the United States. So why are we seeing continuing restrictions and challenges towards content about something demonstrably legal yet not against that which is clearly illegal?"

Starting in 2018, after the Parkland mass shooting, YouTube began to ban videos that "promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories.” In addition, it prohibited instructional on how to build firearms.

"Content intended to sell firearms, instruct viewers on how to make firearms, ammunition, and certain accessories, or instruct viewers on how to install those accessories is not allowed on YouTube," the company’s policy stated. "YouTube shouldn't be used as a platform to sell firearms or accessories noted below. YouTube also doesn't allow live streams that show someone holding, handling, or transporting a firearm."

Google classifies firearms content as "non-family safe," and Twitter has boasted about its prohibition of "the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories globally."

Facebook, which is the parent company of Instagram, also bans the "sale or trade of firearms, ammunition, and explosives between private individuals."

Due to the arbitrary nature of Facebook policies, there has been a noticeable chilling effect that has affected firearms companies big and small.

Tom Taylor, chief marketing officer and executive vice president of commercial sales for SIG Sauer, believes the social media censorship of firearms companies is getting way out of hand.

"Instagram and Facebook, Google and YouTube, Twitter, Yahoo – or virtually any mainstream search engine – is not allowing firearm manufacturers to advertise or promote via paid activities,” Taylor said. “No sponsored or paid posts are allowed. These platforms are built to be optimized by paid advertising so, the firearm industry is almost completely dependent on organic reach and grassroots efforts.”

Taylor revealed that the situation is only getting worse as these companies find more avenues to manipulate social media algorithms to censor gun-related content.

"Many companies attempt to use hashtags that are unrelated to restricted categories/topics or work with non-firearm specific partners," Taylor explained. "Even then, if it is used at a high enough rate, a company may be warned, flagged, and/or blocked, that is shadowbanned."

The threats gun owners face in 2020 are unconventional. With Big Tech jumping on the anti-gun craze, gun grabbers have plenty of ways to attack our freedoms.

Although private enterprise has America great, it can be used to advance political causes that are detrimental to our liberties. But not all hope is lost. Gun owners can flex their economic muscles by boycotting businesses that participate in the anti-gun-frenzy. Similarly, firearms organizations and business will have to adapt and turn to snail mail, email marketing, and other forms of promotion that are not as reliant on traditional social media platforms.

It’s tough, but that’s the way things are in 2020 gun politics.

José Niño is a Venezuelan American freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Sign up for his mailing list here. Contact him via Facebook, Twitter, or email him at joseinpolitics@gmail.com. Get his e-book, The 10 Myths of Gun Control, here.

If you think this can't happen to you, better think again.

(Past member) — Sun, 12 Jul 2020 02:09:14 GMT

Missouri couple who defended home have rifle seized during police search: report: Authorities in St. Louis executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who made headlines last month when they took up arms to defend their home from protesters.

During the search, police seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident, KSDK-TV of St. Louis reported, citing information from a source.

The couple claimed the pistol that Patricia McCloskey held during the June confrontation was already in the possession of their attorney, the station reported.

INVESTIGATION INTO ST. LOUIS COUPLE WHO DEFENDED THEIR HOME AGAINST PROTESTERS IS 'ABUSE OF POWER,' SAYS SEN. HAWLEY

There was no immediate indication the McCloskeys were arrested or charged with a crime. The warrant applied only to a search for the guns, KSDK reported.

On Monday, the McCloskeys appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” and disclosed that protesters had returned to their neighborhood July 3 – but the couple was alerted in advance and hired a private security company to protect their residence.

The previous night, “we started hiding valuables and securing the house,” Mark McCloskey told host Sean Hannity.

Last week’s protest was loud but non-violent, the homeowner said.

In the June incident, Patricia McCloskey said, the couple was startled just before dinnertime when “300 to 500 people” entered the gated community where they live.

"[They said] that they were going to kill us," Patricia McCloskey told Hannity on Monday night. "They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, 'That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room’.”"

The couple said protesters also threatened to harm their dog, which was outside the home at the time.

The protesters claimed they were passing the McCloskeys' home while heading toward the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson, to demonstrate there.

Soon after the June incident, Kimberly Gardner, circuit attorney in St. Louis, announced that her office and the St. Louis Police Department would be conducting an investigation into the McCloskeys’ display of firearms.

WHO IS KIMBERLY GARDNER, ST. LOUIS PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING GUN-TOTING COUPLE?

The couple’s attorney at the time, Albert Watkins, said in a statement that the couple did not arm themselves until after they began feeling threatened.

"My clients didn't sit on their front stoop with guns. ... No firearms were on them at the time that they, were, as property owners standing in front of their home," Watkins said at the time. "It was not until they basically were in a position of seeing and observing violence, recklessness, lawbreaking, and knowing that the police were not going to be doing anything."

Late Friday, KSDK reported that Watkins was no longer representing the couple and had been replaced by attorney Joel Schwartz, who confirmed a search warrant was issued at 8 p.m. Friday.

Schwartz would not confirm if authorities took anything from the home and said he was unaware of the location of the couple's handgun, KSDK reported.

The couple's new lawyer also said he hopes to meet with Gardner's office next week but said no appointment had yet been scheduled, according to KSDK.

Why You Should Consider America’s Rifle for Home Defense

Wed, 08 Jul 2020 22:17:31 GMT

“Should I buy a handgun or a shotgun for home defense?” is a question I often get from friends. These people often overlook AR-type rifles. Regardless, I often recommend an AR. Here’s why.

AR-type rifles simply shoot more accurately than handguns. If you have any doubts, simply run a quick experiment at your local outdoor range. Talk to gun owners of varying skill levels—from complete novices to experts—and ask them to volunteer for a fun course of fire. Set three IDPA silhouette targets, or something similar, at 10 yards from the shooter and about 2 yards apart. Tell them to shoot each target with two rounds, center mass, as accurately and fast as they are able. Use a shot timer and have them run the course with an AR-15, a handgun and a shotgun. No matter your sample size, almost all people will shoot the course more effectively (combination of time and accuracy) with the AR-type rifle.
AR-type rifles can have a greater magazine capacity. Joe Biden and his gun-ban-supporting friends think they know exactly how many rounds of ammunition you will “need” if you are ever in a fight for your life. The truth is that no one knows this anymore confidently than they know how many gallons of water will be needed to douse the next house fire in the neighborhood. No survivor of a life-or-death fight has ever said, “I wish I had had less firepower!”
These rifles give superior terminal performance. Rifles of appropriate caliber are much better fight-stoppers than handguns, and rival the effectiveness of shotguns in this department. Lawful lethal force is deployed by citizens when a violent threat must be immediately stopped before the bad guy takes a life. Long guns are simply better than handguns at quickly incapacitating violent threats.
These rifles readily accept accoutrements. Almost all modern ARs come from the manufacturer equipped with handguards that allow the convenient attachment of accessories, like lights and lasers, that can be helpful—often essential—in self-defense scenarios. Lights, whether attached to a gun or not, are a must to positively identify a threat in low-light scenarios. Lasers can help with quick and easy target acquisition, and they can also be the reason an attacker turns and runs. Suppressors are also easy to attach to ARs, and they can make the difference for your hearing if you are ever forced to discharge a rifle inside a home.
Finally, for decades there was an assumption that firing rifles in homes would present unacceptable risks to innocent parties on the other side of internal walls due to “over-penetration” issues. This is the reason many law-enforcement organizations used pistol-caliber submachine guns like the HK MP5 when going into homes in high-risk situations. But this over-penetration argument was based on a flawed assumption. The FBI decided to put this assumption to the test, and study this matter. It found that 5.56 NATO self-defense ammunition posed no greater risk of over-penetration than rounds fired from pistols and shotguns. While the myth remains, good people should not be deterred by it. Be safe and always assume all bullets will pass through all walls.

If you have friends come to you asking about home defense options, make sure you do them the favor of having them consider an AR-style rifle. For many people, it’s a superior home-defense arm that should not be ignored.

Happy Independence Day, New York!

Sat, 04 Jul 2020 16:43:29 GMT

For your listening pleasure~~

"Star Spangled Steel"

(who says gun folks aren't cultured?!~~ ;)

https://youtu.be/DHLlwiLebkc

Mom Who Famously Confronted Beto O'Rourke Scores Massive Election Win

(Past member) — Thu, 02 Jul 2020 04:04:29 GMT

Always remember, give people something to vote for. Here’s an excellent example from a young mother in Colorado.

https://www.westernjournal.com/conservative-mom-famously-confronted-beto-orourke-scores-massive-election-win/

What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns

(Past member) — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 06:07:16 GMT

Health care professionals misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control is called an ethical boundary violation.

You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making (your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization such as the AAP or ACP), it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here

—Timothy Wheeler, MD is the founder and former director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and a retired head and neck surgeon.

All DRGO articles by Timothy Wheeler, MD.

What Impact Will Millions Of New Gun Owners Have On The 2020 Election?

Sat, 27 Jun 2020 22:16:13 GMT

June 26, 2020 | Cam Edwards With gun sales soaring, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation reporting that as many as 2-million Americans have purchased their first gun in just the past six months, some folks are starting to think about the impact that these new Second Amendment enthusiasts could have on the November elections. Alan Gottlieb, the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, believes that the influx of new gun owners could signal a “sea change” in Second Amendment politics.

“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we dig a little deeper into those new gun owners and how the might effect this year’s elections as well as the broader debate over gun ownership in this country.

As much as I’d love to think that every new gun owner is going to turn into a single issue voter, we know that isn’t going to be the case. There will be plenty of left-leaning new gun owners who cast their votes for anti-gun Democrats in November, even if they now object to a candidate’s position on the Second Amendment. My hope is that these gun owners will not only come to understand the importance of voting to protect their right to keep and bear arms sooner rather than later, but that they’ll push Democrats to undo the damage done by gun control laws.

As I wrote yesterday, it’s time to decriminalize the 2A as part of criminal justice reform efforts, and left-leaning gun owners may be able to make these arguments to Democrats who would ignore the same thing if it came out of the mouth of a conservative gun owner. One day before long the idea of gun licensing and discretionary carry laws may be just as unpopular on the Left as the national anthem or Abraham Lincoln seem to be at the moment.

Having said that, Gottlieb is right that some of these new gun owners will be voting to protect their newly exercised right to keep and bear arms. For instance, at the moment there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who’ve been waiting for months for the state to issue their Firearms Owned ID card so they can legally purchase a firearm. Many of these would-be gun owners may still be so ticked off by the process that they vote in favor of candidates in November who want to scrap the FOID system entirely.

New gun owners in California who’ve now been exposed to the absurdities of the state’s gun control regime could also have an impact on some races, though Biden will still win the state handily. In swing districts, however, new gun owners could help tilt races for the state Assembly and state Senate. I don’t think California’s legislature is going to flip to being a pro-2A body, but if the gun vote does turn out in large numbers in November we might be able to at least remove the veto-proof anti-gun supermajority in the state.

In other words, I think the influx of new gun owners could very well play a key role in deciding some elections, but increased political activism by the nearly 100-million Americans who’ve owned firearms for years could have an even bigger impact. Regardless of when you became a gun owner, it’s critically important that you vote like your rights depend on it this fall, because they absolutely do. Increased gun ownership on the Left may help defuse or undo gun control legislation over the long-term, but in the near future, Democrat control of Congress and the White House would lead to a gutting of the right to keep and bear arms for all of us.

CCRKBA SAYS MILLIONS OF NEW GUN OWNERS WILL RESHAPE 2A BATTLE

Sat, 27 Jun 2020 17:50:30 GMT

June 25th, 2020 | CCRKBA BELLEVUE, WA – The recent gun-buying surge that began with the COVID-19 pandemic panic and continued through the civil unrest and riots following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody has created millions of new gun owners who will now eagerly protect their right to protect themselves and their loved ones, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms predicts.

“Look at all of the new people who suddenly decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms,” observed CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’ve witnessed something that is nothing short of a sea change, and in some cases might approach the level of epiphany, about gun ownership. We’ve heard anecdotal reports from all over the country about people flocking to gun shops who had never before owned a firearm. Now that they are gun owners, we expect them to be very protective of their rights.”

March, April and May saw record numbers of background checks, according to FBI data and information from industry sources. June data should be out within days, and CCRKBA expects the trend to continue.

“As we’ve said before,” Gottlieb recalled, “we welcome all of these new gun owners to the firearms community. We know many of them are minorities, especially Black and female citizens from literally all age groups, and they will find gun owners have a big tent with lots of room for newcomers. They can take advantage of training opportunities, meet new friends who share more interests than they might have suspected, and gain a new understanding of our efforts to protect the one fundamental right that actually protects all of the other rights.

“We’re not surprised to hear about new first-time gun buyers who have discovered how much enjoyment they get out of shooting,” he added. “We’ve seen this with generations of new gun owners who may never have had any previous experience with firearms. Many of them discover a sense of empowerment that allows them, maybe for the first time, to understand they can take care of themselves, and that they are responsible for their own safety.

“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”

AG’s in 16 States Embrace Background Checks On Ammo Purchases

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 02:51:39 GMT

June 24, 2020 | Cam Edwards California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.

Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.

If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.

First, the amici States object to the district court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment constrained California’s ability to enact the ammunition regulations at issue here. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment allows States to address the harmful effects of gun violence through new regulations. And California’s ammunition regulations—which are similar to numerous laws across the country—are an appropriate exercise of that prerogative.

Second, the amici States disagree with the district court’s apparent view that California’s interests in public safety and crime prevention cannot be substantiated by the types of evidence presented here. On the contrary, it is settled that States may support their interests in public safety and crime prevention with a wide range of evidence, including social science studies and legislative findings.

First off, there’s no other state in the country that requires background checks on ammunition sales, though the requirement was part of the SAFE Act signed into law in New York in 2013. The New York State Police never figured out how to actually conduct the background checks, however, and in 2015 Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the requirement due to the failure of his administration to find a way to implement the law.

The AG’s brief ignores New York’s failure and tries instead to point to laws in several states that they claim bear a strong resemblance to the law being challenged in California.

Relevant here, a number of States have also extended background checks or similar requirements to ammunition sales within their jurisdictions. Indeed, four States in addition to California require some form of background check to purchase ammunition. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey currently require that individuals possess a license or firearms identification card—which requires passing a background check—before purchasing ammunition.

The District of Columbia also imposes restrictions on ammunition sales; District residents may only purchase ammunition if they are listed as a registered owner of a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition they seek to purchase. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2505.02(d), 7-2506.01. Nonresidents seeking to purchase ammunition must demonstrate that they lawfully possess a firearm of the same caliber or gauge. Id. § 7-2505.02(d). And like California, the District also requires all ammunition sales to be conducted in-person.

None of the states mentioned by the AG’s require background checks to be performed before every ammunition purchase, and none of them prohibit ammunition purchased out-of-state from being brought back home by legal gun owners. In fact, if that’s the law in Washington, D.C., no gun owner in the city would be able to purchase ammunition, because there are zero gun stores in the District. It’s laughable that the anti-gun attorneys general are citing a law that is utterly unenforceable in their quest to have California’s ammunition background check law declared constitutional.

If you’re a Second Amendment legal nerd, be sure to read the entire brief. And if you live in one of these 16 states with AG’s backing California’s asinine infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you better contact your lawmakers now and urge them to reject any attempt to impose California-style ammunition purchase restrictions, even if your attorney general has given the go-ahead.

Judge denies gun rights groups' effort to block one-handgun-a-month law

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 02:32:06 GMT

Jun 25, 2020 | Vernon Freeman Jr. GOOCHLAND, Va. -- A Goochland Circuit Court judge denied a challenge from gun rights groups Thursday to block the one-handgun-a-month law from going into effect on July 1.

The group challenged the constitutionality of the newly reinstated law arguing it violates Virginians' right to “keep and bear arms.”

Judge Timothy K. Sanner found that the gun lobby was unlikely to succeed in convincing the court that the law was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed by Gun Owners of America, Inc. (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Brothers N Arms, Inc., and citizen Valerie Trojan.

“I am really pleased that the judge agreed with me today and rejected the gun lobby’s attempt to block the one-handgun-a-month law. Currently, Virginia is one of the easiest states in the country for gun traffickers to purchase large numbers of firearms to resell on the street, and we can’t allow that to continue,” said Attorney General Herring. “Virginia had a one-handgun-a-month law in effect for nearly twenty years that was extremely successful in keeping firearms out of our communities and out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

A one-handgun-a-month law was first implemented in Virginia in 1993, before being repealed in 2012.

The new law was one of several gun bills that passed the Democratic-controlled General Assembly this winter.

The new one-handgun-a-month law is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2020.

New York’s SAFE Act Useless As Shootings Spike Across State

Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:07:07 GMT

June 21, 2020 | Cam Edwards At least 22 people have been shot in New York City this weekend, including a man who was gunned down at point blank range as he was washing his car in Brooklyn on Saturday afternoon, and the rapid rise in violent crime isn’t limited only to the state’s biggest city. In Syracuse, 9 people were shot on Saturday evening at what’s being described as a “celebration” in the city.

The party in a parking lot behind WCNY Studios near the intersection of Wyoming Street and Marcellus was attended by hundreds according to Syracuse Police Chief Kenton Buckner.

All nine victims were sent to the hospital with various injuries although the most seriously hurt was also the youngest: a 17-year-old male.

Syracuse Police report, when officers arrived, that people were running away and yelling.

Buckner said the incident was first called in as a stolen car complaint, and when officers arrived people said there was a person shooting. Buckner said his officers did not hear gunfire while they were at the scene.

In the state capitol of Albany, Chief Eric Hawkins and Mayor Kathy Sheehan held a press conference on Friday to implore the public to cooperate with law enforcement as they try to cope with a staggering increase in violent crime.

According to Hawkins, they have seen three times as many shots-fired incidents in 2020 than they did at this point in 2019.

Hawkins said the pandemic lead to a decrease in community policing and restricted the department’s ability to address issues that arose. Now with the area opening back up, Hawkins is seeking help from the community to stifle the violence.

“We are working together in a united front to address this issue,” Hawkins said. “We are arresting people, we are taking guns off the street, but yet this problem is persisting. We need more. We need more than just innovatice police strategies, we need more than just more cops. We need our community to help.”

Other city leaders at the Friday press conference said the community knows who the shooters are, and pleaded with people not to wait until they are personally impacted by gun violence.

Keep in mind that New York has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thanks in large part to the SAFE Act signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2013. So-called assault weapons are banned, ammunition magazines with more than seven rounds of ammunition are illegal, and possession of a firearm without a license is a felony crime. Cuomo has claimed that the law “stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun,” but clearly criminals are paying as much attention to the state’s gun control laws as they are the laws on the books prohibiting aggravated assault and homicide.

In New York City, officials are still doubling down on the idea that more gun control and fewer police officers on the streets will lead to less shootings.

“We are going to put more and more resources into the Cure Violence movement and the Crisis Management System, which has proven to be extraordinarily effective in stopping gun violence before it happens and mediating conflicts,” Mayor Bill de Blasio has said.

The mayor has increased the Cure Violence budget by $10 million for more staff and sites, especially those with high gun violence in areas including Jamaica, Canarsie, and Crown Heights.

“During the month of May, we are seeing an increase of 25 percent in homicides in the last few days, so it is concerning – we are deploying our Cure Violence particularly in retaliation shootings,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams.

While the City Council is proposing $1 billion in cuts to the police department, Adams is backing that decision.

“If we put money on the front end, we won’t be dealing with the crisis on the back end, that is how we have been policing in the city,” he said.

According to the city’s website, the Cure Violence program:

“employs ‘violence interrupters’ and outreach workers from the community who have themselves experienced violence and also have strong relationships with young adults, community leaders, and service providers. Violence interrupters stop conflicts before they happen, and outreach workers re-direct the highest-risk youth away from life on the streets. Outreach workers implement a detailed risk reduction plan that links youth with needed services. These connections result in the cooling of violence hot spots, in addition to positive outcomes for those who participate in the intervention.”

I don’t have a problem with Cure Violence’s strategy in theory, as long as it’s working. Unfortunately, at the moment, the “violence interruptors” don’t seem to be actually interrupting the violence at all.

During the month of May, overall crime decreased compared to the same period last year.

But the NYPD says murders in the city increase by 79%.

Shootings went up 64%, while burglaries rose 34%.

While anti-gun politicians like Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo wring their hands and twiddle their thumbs, New York’s violent criminals are having a field day, and law-abiding New Yorkers should be asking themselves this simple question: who exactly is safer thanks to the SAFE Act and the state’s gun control regime?

Why Did the Roberts Court Punt on Ten Second Amendment Cases?

Sat, 20 Jun 2020 13:32:54 GMT

The most likely explanation is that neither of the Court?s ideological factions was confident enough of Roberts?s support to risk grantingÿcertiorari.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard ? and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court?s reviewing Second Amendment issues.

Justice Thomas has been dissenting from the Court?s refusal to review those issues for years, and he did so again on Monday, writing to protest the Court?s decision to pass onÿRogers v. Grewal, a case addressing New Jersey?s unconstitutional handgun-carry-permit laws:

This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Justice Alito authored the landmark 2010ÿMcDonald v. Chicagoÿopinion, which incorporated Second Amendment rights to cover the states, and recently filed a scathing dissent to the Court?s decision inÿNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York:

Twelve years ago inÿDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerÿ. . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision inÿMcDonald v. Chicagoÿ. . . established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.

Alito?s dissent goes on to review the underlying merits of the case and argue that the New York City gun-control law at issue is certainly unconstitutional.

Justice Kavanaugh is also in favor of the Court?s weighing in on Second Amendment issues. He wrote a well-knownÿdissent inÿHeller II, a follow-up case stemming from theÿHellerÿdecision Alito references, in which he chastised the D.C. Circuit?s reasoning and directly applied the Supreme Court test that was established inÿHeller. More recently, he joined Thomas?s dissent against the Court?s refusal to hearÿRogers, and wrote, in a concurrence to theÿNew York State Rifleÿdecision:

I share Justice Alito?s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applyingÿHellerÿandÿMcDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, while being quieter on the subject, has voiced his support for a review of Second Amendment issues as well: He has joined a couple of dissents penned by Justices Thomas and Alito, inÿPeruta v. CaliforniaÿandÿNew York State Rifle, respectively.

If you?re counting along at home, that?s four Justices ? Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh ? in favor of the Court?s reviewing Second Amendment issues. Those four together can grantÿcertiorariÿin any case they wish. One presumes that the only reason they didn?t do so in one of the ten Second Amendment cases the Court passed on Monday is that they were unsure how Chief Justice Roberts would vote once the cases were heard.

To be clear, the Court wasn?t in want of choice. The ten cases pending before it covered issues ranging from New Jersey?s handgun-carry regulations (Rogers) to California?s presumptively unsafe handgun law (Pena v. Horan) and Massachusetts? ?assault weapon? and ?high-capacity magazine? bans (Worman v. Healey).

Some of the ten also showed a clear circuit split ? a conflict between two or more courts of appeals in the nation as to how to decide a similar or identical issue ? which tends to make the Court far more likely to hear a case. In this instance, there was and is a clear split between circuits on the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home.

So, ruling out votes and issues, the remaining roadblock would seem to be Chief Justice Roberts. What is unclear is why.

Some have speculated that Roberts wants to avoid risking the Court?s reputation on a controversial case during a tense political cycle. But, if the Court had grantedÿcertiorariÿin one of these cases today, the case would have been briefed over the summer, argued in late 2020 or early 2021, and decided in early or mid 2021, well after the next president had been elected.

Does Roberts actually align with the four progressive-leaning justices on the Court when it comes to the Second Amendment? Not likely. Remember, the four progressive-leaning justices can grant review of a case just as the four conservative-leaning justices can. Given that they didn?t on Monday, they likely don?t believe Chief Justice Roberts is on their ?side? of the issue.

The conclusion we?re left with is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn?t want the Court to weigh in on the Second Amendment right now, and neither the four conservative justices nor the four progressive justices were confident enough of his siding with them on the issue to risk grantingÿcertiorariÿin any of the ten cases.

Keep in mind, when the chief justice is in the majority on a decision, he gets to pick who writes the opinion.If Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote in a case, he?ll be in the majority however he decides, and could easily assign himself the opinion. Given that the rest of the Court is evenly split, no matter how he drafted it, the justices who agreed with the outcome of the opinion would almost have to sign on, regardless of its reasoning, and that could spell trouble.

For now, we will have to rely on the decisions of the circuit courts in gun-rights cases. But while it?s unclear what the impact of this week will be on the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence, those of us committed to defending Second Amendment-protected rights will not give up the fight.

Cody J. Wisnieisniewski is an attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues, and is the co-author ofÿAmicus Curiaeÿbriefs inÿNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New YorkÿandÿPena v. Horan

Cops are the Good Guys

(Past member) — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:00:05 GMT

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prageru.com%2Fvideo%2Fcops-are-the-good-guys%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca8db017c9c714173dfaa08d80ede01d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637275693952836704&sdata=zdKvMErx4BEpH7BSIrOdaEVjaR9OAzI5imL09H4m%2FY0%3D&reserved=0

Truckers Call for Second Amendment Right Nationwide During Emergency

(Past member) — Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:27:26 GMT

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- A group of small business truckers has sent an email to the Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The email asks that, as part of the national emergency involving the Chinese virus, the federal government declare the Second Amendment overrides state law and federal regulation forbidding truckers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

From transportationnation.com:

The 15,000-member SBTC is calling on federal authorities to preempt state and local laws regarding the right to carry a firearm.

Therefore, in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we hereby request the U.S. Department of Transportation please issue a preemption order nullifying any and all state and local laws that restrict truck drivers from carrying firearms across state lines throughout America in order to enable them to protect themselves and their cargo as they engage in interstate commerce.

As this is now a matter of life and death, please issue same forthwith.

“The SBTC through its TRUCKER LIVES MATTER campaign has sought the unfettered ability of drivers to carry firearms for self protection nationwide since its inception in 2014,” Lamb tells Transportation Nation Network (TNN). “We have pointed to Department of Labor statistics that show the unusually high rates of murders on the road for workers in interstate transportation.”

This is a valid argument. It is vital that trucks keep delivering everything society needs to keep operating during the emergency. During social unrest, there will always be an element attempting to take advantage of the situation.

One argument between those who want the population disarmed and those who believe the population should have easy access to arms is a small scale, utilitarian one.

People who are voluntarily unarmed have a psychological interest in promoting the idea that having a gun makes a person less safe, and that having a gun has no utility in preventing crime. It reassures them they have made the correct decision by deciding to be unarmed.

It is a difficult argument to make rationally persuasive. Weapons would not exist if they did not provide the possessor with an advantage over the disarmed.

The fallback position, for those who wish the population to be disarmed, is to claim only intensely trained and supervised individual, such as, supposedly, police and military personnel, can gain benefit from being armed.

However, people who have passed through the legal hoops required to obtain carry permits, commit far fewer crimes than do the police. Police tend to train more with firearms than do most military (as difficult as that is to believe).

Commercial truckers go through a similar background check process as do most concealed carry permit holders. Truckers are especially vulnerable to violent crime because of their vocation.

It would be a good test case for the Trump Administration to declare, during this emergency, the exercise of Second Amendment rights by commercial truckers (whose licenses are federally supervised) overrides state powers to regulate firearms. This argument would be bolstered by the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, as granted by the Constitution.

Those who have lived by the abuse of the interstate commerce clause for decades would be feeling the other side of the blade.

It would be a good policy. It would be good politics.

It would be immediately challenged in court. It would send a good message to the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court.

It combines utility, emergency powers, the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. It would be nearly irresistible for activist district court judges. It would be difficult for the appellate courts to ignore. Such a combination would be very difficult for the current Supreme Court to ignore.

It would not be perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the good, because, those who insist on perfect prevent the good from ever happening.

Such an emergency proclamation would be a double-edged dagger pointed at the heart of the arguments against the exercise of Second Amendment right.

The May/June 2020 Firing Lines is available!

Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:30:50 GMT

Download a copy from this link:

May/June Firing Lines (Pdf)

Senator Helming is asking for Election Inspectors

(Past member) — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 03:17:29 GMT

Dear Friend,

I hope this email finds you and your family well. I am contacting you about an important issue facing our local counties. With elections approaching on June 23rd, there is an urgent need for Election Inspectors. Election Inspectors help make our elections run safely and smoothly and it is important that our election locations are properly staffed. To be an Election inspector, you must be a registered Democrat or Republican voter in the county. You will be paid $200 to work the day of the Primary (June 23rd) and the General (November 3rd) in addition to $25 to attend a training. I have included links to each of our counties Board Of Election websites if you are interested in signing up.

Cayuga County:

https://www.cayugacounty.us/212/Election-Inspector-Information

Phone: 315-253-1285

Monroe County:

https://www2.monroecounty.gov/elections-inspectors.php

Phone:585-753-1550

Ontario County:

https://www.co.ontario.ny.us/FormCenter/Board-of-Elections-23/Inspector-Signup-111

Phone: 585-396-4005

Seneca:County

https://www.co.seneca.ny.us/gov/elections/jobs/

Phone:315-539-1760

Tompkins County:

https://tompkinscountyny.gov/boe/For_ElectionWorkers/How_do_I_become_a_Poll_Worker/Index_PollWorker

Phone: 607-274-5522

Wayne County:

https://web.co.wayne.ny.us/index.php/wayne-county-board-of-elections/election-inspectors/

Phone:315-946-7400

Again, it is important that our polling locations are properly staffed and I urge you to consider becoming an election inspector. As always, please do not hesitate to contact my office if I can be of assistance to you or your family.

Best,

Pam

Albany Office:
517 Legislative Office Bldg
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2366

District Office:
425 Exchange St
Geneva, NY 14456
315-568-9816

Abolish and Confiscate (proof is in the links)

(Past member) — Mon, 08 Jun 2020 04:54:11 GMT

Nolte: Democrats Want to Abolish the Police and Confiscate Our Guns

John Nolte6 Jun 2020

Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

4:58

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to abolish police departments.

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to confiscate our guns, to confiscate our right to defend ourselves.

This is no accident.

But first the facts…

Links to mainstream Democrats calling for the police to be defunded, which will obviously result in the police being abolished, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most especially here.

Links to mainstream Democrats like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others calling for — not just gun control — but straight up confiscation, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Secondly, to those of you who think this idea of abolishing the police and the Second Amendment is insane and can therefore never happen, you need to remove your head from the sand. Here are some more facts…

We went from zero to gay marriage in less than ten years.
We went from zero to drag queen story hour in about ten seconds.
The left is blacklisting us for referring to biological men as “he.”
The corporate media are now describing the burning and looting of cities as “political speech.”
This same media are describing peaceful protests by Tea Partiers and those ravaged by anti-science lockdowns as “dangerous” and “violent.”
Lego is blacklisting its own toys.
The NFL just committed suicide.
Drew Brees is now on his third 1984-ish public confession, a full-blown grovel tour, for the sin of expressing respect for the American flag.
Legions of white people are kneeling to ask forgiveness for something they had no part of.
Healthcare “experts” are telling us the coronavirus is lethal if you want to go to work, school, or your grandmother’s funeral, but not so lethal if you are out en masse to support “approved” causes.

The Democrat Party has been completely radicalized, emboldened, and is currently eating itself alive in the kind of cultish moral panic we have not seen since McCarthyism or the McMartin preschool scandal.

Now, you might say, there’s no way Democrats will abolish the police; this will only make life infinitely worse for the people who live in Democrat-run cities, which is where a bulk of the black population live.

Must I explain everything?

Democrats have completely failed black people, and that is by design. Democrats know that once people become middle class, they are much more likely to vote Republican. So the goal is to keep people poor, keep ’em scared, keep their schools crappy (no school choice, no charter schools), tell them there’s no hope because America is evil and racist — in other words, keep ’em voting for Democrats.

You’ve heard of Jim Crow and Southern Segregation…? That was ALL Democrats. George Wallace and Bull Connor were Democrats. The whole system was created and enforced by Democrats. Black lives were destroyed in the South to keep Democrats in power then; black lives in urban areas are destroyed to keep Democrats in power now.

Good grief, we just elected a black president for two terms, we just brought black unemployment to a record low, and the entire country was repulsed by what happened to George Floyd, most especially President Trump… But people are still rioting.

Why?

So Democrats and the left can cover up their own staggering failures.

For decades Democrats have had sole providence over almost every major city in America. We’ve literally poured trillions of tax dollars into the War on Poverty and public schools… In other words, Democrats have had sole control over these areas, have instituted every policy they believe in without opposition, and have received swimming pools full of federal dollars… And look at the result… Total failure.

What you are seeing in all this social unrest is 1) the of the abject failure of leftist ideas that have had 50 years to work, and 2) the whipping up of the mob to distract from those failures and blame a guy who’s only been in office — who’s only been in politics three years: the Orange Bad Man.

Making life worse for black people is not a bug in the Democrat Party, it’s a feature. As is tyranny. Good grief, what better example of the Democrat tyranny do you need than these anti-science lockdowns? What more proof do you need than Democrat governors and mayors arresting people for going to church just days before they openly encourage and join massive protests?

So of course Democrats want to abolish the police and confiscate our guns.

Of course these power-hungry leftists want us helpless and defenseless.

Duh.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

HOW A MARINE CORPS VETERAN DISARMED A RIOTER DURING SEATTLE PROTEST

Sun, 07 Jun 2020 11:58:36 GMT

Joshua Skovlund | June 02, 2020 A Marine Corps veteran turned security contractor, who asked that his name not be used for security reasons, unintentionally took the internet by storm after a video surfaced of him disarming a Seattle rioter who had stolen a police officer’s AR-15 from a destroyed squad car Saturday.

The preliminary details of what happened have become distorted on social media, with misconceptions about a second rifle that was slung on his back as well as why he was at the protests that developed following George Floyd’s death in police custody. Coffee or Die obtained an exclusive interview with the contractor to set the record straight on what happened that day.

The contractor served four years in the U.S. Marine Corps infantry in 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, Alpha Company. After separating from service, he entered into his current career of military contracting, which has included working as a firearms instructor and in security, along with starting a community group on Instagram called Firewatch Official, a page dedicated to helping military and first responder personnel share their stories and quell demons that some carry with them. He said that he is in-between jobs, and due to financial strains incurred by the pandemic, is also in the beginning stages of starting his own company. “When you get to the bottom, it’s like, where are you going to go but up?” he said.

Being introduced to firearms at a young age helped him view guns as tools and develop safe handling practices. He said his father taught him the intricacies of firearms. “It’s a passion, it’s a hobby. It’s obsession. It’s a love. It’s the thing I choose to make my life around,” he explained. He was naturally drawn to working with firearms and in a career that allows him to use them. And he was in the right place at the right time during the protests and riots on the streets of Seattle.

The contractor was hired to protect the crew of reporters from a local Fox News affiliate out of Seattle while they covered the protests and riots in the city, although he’s been accused of being at the protest to assert himself. “I was working and doing my job, trying to pay bills,” he said. “I’d rather be home playing with my dog — [laughs] my wife’s dog, she would kill me if she heard that one!”

He thought through every step of this contract and then some, starting with the decision to carry his pistol in a bag because he wanted to blend in. The contractor also expressed concern over the hundreds of people potentially bumping into him and trying to lift a side holstered pistol or his spare magazines on his belt. He dressed in multiple layers in case he was “made” by the rioters and would need to switch up to obscure his identity.

The contractor and his U.S. Marine Corps crew. Photo courtesy of the contractor/Instagram.

The contractor met with the news crew around 3 PM to move them down to the area where they would be reporting. He said there was complete chaos when they arrived, and it continued throughout the day. He was immediately busy. “I was trying to keep them safe from anything, […] whether it was thrown, tossed or someone just rushing by,” he said. The contractor was especially cognizant of the Fox News photojournalist who had a camera on his shoulder, leaving him completely blind to the right side. “I became his eyes,” he said.

The news crew wanted to set up in a particular area to record what was happening to two police vehicles that were on the street. Rioters were destroying the squad cars rapidly, and the contractor had already made a mental note to watch them because he suspected that there were firearms inside. He saw the vandals digging in the first squad car and immediately moved the news crew around the corner to safety. “Stay safe, and I’ll be right back,” he told them.

“The first, he was a shooter. People are getting me on this. He was a shooter. He produced the AR-15, held it like good ol’ Rambo-style at the hip, and he fired four rounds into the police vehicle and the wall of the building,” he said. The contractor explained that he wasn’t sure why the rioter stopped at four rounds, but knew he needed to act quickly. The rioter didn’t see him coming, but ducked into a store next to the squad car. The contractor could still see a part of the vandal’s frame around the corner of the doorway, and as soon as he turned the corner, he yelled aggressively for him to put down the weapon.

The contractor described the rioter’s reaction to the confrontation as a “deer in headlights, stunned — you know, wide eyes and his hands kind of opened up. And he’s still holding the rifle. He didn’t drop it. So, [I] snatched his weapon.” After confiscating the rifle, he backed out of the store slowly, then took off back to his news crew, simultaneously removing the bolt carrier group and the charging handle of the AR-15 and stuffing them in his pocket. He regrouped to continue his job.

Shortly after the first incident, the contractor eyed a second rioter doing the same thing to the other squad car. Rinse and repeat — he said the second one caught on video was almost identical to the first disarming of a rioter. Even though he had successfully prevented two separate potential threats, he had a much larger threat looming.

“I had just taken a firearm from a guy that was essentially aligned with hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this area,” he said. “And I drew a line around me that said, ‘I’m not with any of you here.’” In addition to keeping the news crew safe, his concern now grew to the rioters turning on him after he thwarted their plans. The contractor quickly called the police dispatcher and reported the two confiscated AR-15’s.

A large group of protesters started running around the corner, past the contractor and the news crew. He walked around the corner expecting to see the police approaching, but there were no officers in sight. The contractor knew he needed to get the rifles off him due to the growing threat.

“Until I got to about three and a half blocks away where I was getting closer to the police, I had people on me, I had a horde of people on me saying all kinds of things imaginable, phones out, all that,” he said. “So there was definitely an uptick. It went from maybe 15 to 50 percent of attention because people were just looking at me like, you know, Why do you have this rifle? […] Everyone’s after me.”

The contractor headed out with one of the news crew members to get the rifles back to the police, and two males were following him. He turned to confront them and found out that they were following him to make sure he got there safely. He recalled that one of them wore an American flag bandana and had another in his pocket, partially showing.

One of the two rioters that the contractor disarmed. Screen grab from video uploaded to YouTube by KOMO News.

“[That tells me] you’re here to protest, and you’re trying to hold up American values, which I thought was excellent,” he said. The American flag protester assisted the contractor the whole way, while the second peeled off prior to the police line. The protester jogged ahead to gather intel on whether the police were actually there and confirmed their position.

As the trio approached the police line, the contractor said, “They’re on high alert just as well as I was, you know? […] I made it very clear what my intentions were. I listened to what they were saying, and I approached showing them exactly what I was doing.” He popped the AR-15’s, slung them over his forearm, and holstered his pistol to make it clear that he was not threatening the police.

The contractor and his crew were met with some resistance from the police and were ordered to stop approaching. He explained to the officer talking to him that the rifles were theirs and they needed to take them. “I took the bolt carrier groups and charging handles out of my back pocket. I put them in his hand, and as his lieutenant walks up, his eyes were just kind of like, what the hell?” he said. He explained the situation and that the rifles actually belonged to the police, handed them over, and ran back to find the crew member who had stayed by their original location.

Rioters and protesters recognized him from the previous events, so he switched out his outer layer of clothing and wore a mask for the rest of the night. But he kept his news crew safe while simultaneously preventing the potential deaths of police officers, protesters, and rioters.

Editor’s Note: Article updated to remove name due to security concerns.

Joshua is a staff writer for Coffee or Die Magazine. He has previously covered the 75th anniversary of D-Day in France, multinational military exercises in Germany, and civil unrest during the 2020 riots that followed the death of George Floyd. Born and raised in small town South Dakota, Josh grew up playing football and soccer before going on to serve as a forward observer in the U.S. Army. After leaving the service, he earned his Crossfit Level 1 certificate and worked as a personal trainer while earning his paramedic license. Josh went on to work in paramedicine for over five years, much of that time in the North Minneapolis area, before transitioning to his career in multimedia journalism. Josh is married and has two children, and is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in multimedia journalism. His creative outlets include Skovlund Photography and Concentrated Emotion, which is where he publishes poetry focused on his life experiences.

...Peaceably to assemble...

(Past member) — Thu, 04 Jun 2020 05:03:04 GMT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,"

--the First Amendment

The militant left has decimated the gun control debate. Biden loses one of his central 2020 themes

Tue, 02 Jun 2020 18:11:23 GMT

If you know anything about Joe Biden, you know that gun control was going to be a major part of his 2020 campaign. He has a long history with the issue, and he was promising to make it a central plank in his administration’s platform. A quick glance at his recent campaign gaffes will show you that he was gearing up for a major anti-2nd Amendment push.

In August of 2016, he told Anderson Cooper that he was indeed coming for your guns:

COOPER: So, to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns?

BIDEN: Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame thrower.

In February, while debating Bernie, he was making ridiculous claims about guns killing 12 million Americans each year since 2007:

“Imagine if I stood here and said we give immunity to drug companies, we give immunity to tobacco companies. That has caused carnage on our streets. 150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.”

Then he announced that, should he win, he’d put Beto in charge of his confiscation efforts and berated a Detroit factory worker who supported gun ownership. Clearly, this consistent escalation was heading toward a major push in advance of November. One assumes the Democratic National Convention was going to be awash in anti-gun rhetoric, promises would be made, and they would have used promises of wide-ranging gun control to stir up the base.

Then the riots happened, and the gun control debate is over for a generation.

One of the left’s favorite tactics is to ask “why do you need a gun?” Sometimes they’re referring to a specific category of weapon, other times they reveal their true intentions and it’s all weapons. Either way, we all know their ultimate agenda is the total elimination of privately-owned firearms.

That’s all over. It’s simply not going happen.

The question, “why do you need a gun,” has been answered by feckless Democrat leaders who refuse to protect their citizens. It’s been answered by violent mobs who wreak havoc, burn buildings, and kill. It’s been answered by police that are either unable or unwilling to handle the protection end of “serve and protect.”

No one who believes in the right of the people to protect themselves will ever again lack a justification for their instincts. Red states will not tolerate anyone who attempts to pare back their rights, and even blue state Dems will be thinking twice about the issue. Those who say there’s “no need” will now look as ridiculous people blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video.

Or… as ridiculous as Joe Biden offering shotgun advice.

Divide NY

(Past member) — Mon, 01 Jun 2020 20:33:09 GMT

The divide amendment has been gaining co-sponsors. See if your NYS Senator or Assembly member on the co-sponsor list below.

If either of your two legislators are NOT on this list of co-sponsors of A05498 - S5416 a NYS constitutional amendment to divide the State into three autonomous regions. Please contact them:
NYS Senate (not federal) Sponsor Ortt; Co-sponsors Borrello, Helming, Jordan, O'Mara, Ranzenhofer, Seward.
Assembly Sponsor DiPietro; Co-sponsors Salka, Lawrence, Crouch, Palmesano, Tague, Norris, Manktelow; Mlt-sponsors Byrnes, Hawley, Kolb.

If your NYS Senator is NOT on list. Please ask your Senator to co-sponsor the Senate bill S5416 in the NYS Senate; you can use this link https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees to find the office phone numbers of your Senator by scrolling down and clicking on their picture followed by clicking on contact or clicking on the "Find your Senator" button and then enter your information.

Also if your NYS Assembly member is NOT on the above list. Please ask your Assembly member to co-sponsor the Assembly bill A05498 in the NYS Assembly; you can use this link https://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ to find the office phone numbers of your Assembly(wo)man by scrolling down and finding their name or clicking on "Search by Address" button and entering your address.

If you have to leave a message. Please leave your request that he/she co-sponsor A05498/S5416 and request for a written reply to your address in your message.

Cuomo under scrutiny...and rightfully so

(Past member) — Thu, 28 May 2020 05:51:20 GMT

Cuomo blames nursing homes for the large number of deaths in their facilities despite the fact he ordered them to accept the patients. He claims they should have refused to take those ill with the COVID based upon any number of pretentious reasons.

Not only did he direct the sick patients to be allowed to be moved from hospitals to the homes, he authored an order (*) prohibiting the homes from testing incoming patients. This was on the NY Health Dept website but has since been conveniently removed.

(* “No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the nursing home solely based upon a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID” *)

A CDC guideline provided a nursing home with the option of opting out if they didn’t believe they were ready to accept a COVID patient. Cuomo’s order gave them no such option.

Yet he has now provided the nursing home executives with immunity. His immunity declaration actually provides nursing home execs with greater protection than deserved. It obviously applies to deaths resulting from following his order. But it increases the level of protection despite the degree of culpability of an exec. The immunity allows for exoneration in nearly all cases of negligence.

A related point, not be ignored, was the absence of family members in these homes while the health of their relatives was possibly declining rapidly. We all know how important it is for any patient to have a strong advocate closely monitoring the patient and their environment. Peeking through a window at a potentially dying loved one does nothing to provide needed assistance.

Relatives could have been allowed visits following temperature checks. Masks and “social distancing” were other options.

The Guardian, which many consider a ‘lefty’, criticized Cuomo for giving immunity to nursing homes execs following large campaign donations in excess of two million dollars. Hmmmm!

VETERANS IN NEED DURING COVID-19 – TWO CALLS FOR ACTION ORGC MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO EXTEND A HELPING HAND TO VETERANS

(Past member) — Wed, 27 May 2020 04:36:00 GMT

The Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester, NY Quarter Master issued an all call to anyone who can help replenish their food cupboard. They are providing boxes of food to needy veterans during this crisis. They need:

Non-perishable boxed foods – rice, pasta, cereal, oatmeal, prepared meals, etc.
Non-perishable can food – fruit, tuna, vegetables, beans, prepared meals, etc.
Small packs of toilet paper or paper goods
Baby items – diapers, cleansing wipes, etc.
Personal care items – soap, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash

I will be personally collecting product donations on SATURDAY MORNINGS FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OF THE CRISIS from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and I will deliver them to the VOC each Monday. Bring items to the clubhouse – no contact drop off.
If you cannot donate vital supplies, you can donate cash or a check to Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester.
ALSO – we have two veterans who need a vehicle to get them to and from life saving medical procedures. Our good friend, Jerry Slater, put out an appeal and was able to generate donations from ORGC ($500), Blue Star Mothers ($500) and Legion Riders ($500) to put toward a vehicle. If you have a vehicle you can sell or donate, know of someone who can help or if you would like to donate to this immediate need, please call me, Steve Verdi, 585-739-3195.
Our veterans in need, need us more now than ever before. Please help. I’m driving deliveries of much needed supplies today to North Greece and Palmyra for VOC. I hope you can help.
Steve, Verdi, Chairman BOD
Via Frankie LaMarca

SCOTUS Blog: No new grants today

Wed, 20 May 2020 14:38:25 GMT

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

The justices denied review in Wexford Health v. Garrett, involving whether a prisoner who does not use all the administrative remedies available to him before filing a lawsuit can “cure” that failure by filing an amended complaint after he is released from prison. The question came to the court in the case of Kareem Garrett, who was a prisoner in the Pennsylvania correctional system when he filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against prison officials and medical staff in 2014. Garrett alleged, among other things, that the officials and staff ignored his serious medical needs – by ending his use of a walker, for example, and stopping his psychiatric medications. The defendants in the case argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to dismiss the claims that Garrett had not first raised administratively, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed. It ruled that although Garrett had been required to exhaust his administrative remedies, his May 2015 release from prison cured the problem.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of review. Thomas observed that the courts of appeals are divided on the question presented by Wexford Health’s petition and that the resolution of that question “will have significant ramifications for not only prisons and prison officials but also federal courts” because of the large number of lawsuits filed by prisoners challenging prison conditions. Until the question is resolved, Thomas emphasized, prisoners in different parts of the country will face different and unequal requirements under the PLRA.

The justices also turned down a trio of petitions (here, here and here) asking them to review rulings by lower courts finding that government officials were entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuits. In two of the cases, “friend of the court” briefs supporting the requests for review had urged the justices not only to grant review, but also to rethink the doctrine of qualified immunity more broadly, but the justices denied the petitions without comment.

The justices’ next conference is scheduled for Thursday, May 21. We expect orders from that conference on Tuesday, May 26, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

10 Second Amendment Cases Scheduled for Conference Again, No Orders Yet

Wed, 20 May 2020 14:34:09 GMT

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court has re-listed the ten Second Amendment cases it has previously distributed for conference.

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

Ten Second Amendment cases have been re-listed for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 15 May, 2020. As noted in the SCOTUSBLOG post above, a writ of certiorari is usually not granted until a case has been heard at conference at least twice. The ten Second Amendment cases have now been to conference at least three times each. Perhaps, because of the number of cases, the Supreme Court Justices are taking more time on this issue.

No orders for any of the Second Amendment cases were issued as of Monday, 18 May.

It is noted in each case whether the Department of Justice has submitted a brief in the case.

The cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:

Mance v. Barr

The DOJ has filed a brief claiming the law is Constitutional.

A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).