frontlines

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

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 . . .

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

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  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 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?

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!

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   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!