• 04/18/2020 5:28 PM | Anonymous

    By Nick Reisman, City of Albany
    PUBLISHED 11:24 AM ET Mar. 27, 2020

    Republican state Sen. Robert Ortt in a letter this week to Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged him to open gun and sportsmen stores in New York amid the coronavirus pandemic.

    Keeping them closed, Ortt argued in the letter, deprives New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights. He pointed to neighboring Pennsylvania, which has allowed gun stores to operate on a limited hours basis.

    "While taking proper public health precautions is necessary and appropriate, the Constitution is not nullified in the face of a pandemic, and the Second Amendment’s value still remains," Ortt wrote in the letter. "New Yorkers still deserve the right to protect themselves, and allowing gun shops to operate would help New Yorkers exercise that right."

    Non-essential workers have been ordered to stay home in New York and businesses that do not fall under the category have closed their physical locations.

    Food stores, pharmacies and health care centers can remain open.

    This is the first full week of the New York "pause" to prevent the spread of the virus.

  • 04/18/2020 5:20 PM | Anonymous

    MAR 18, 2020 BY: JOSÉ NIÑO

    A Florida man was recently subjected to the horrors of Florida’s draconian red flag gun confiscation law.

    Reason Magazine’s Jacob Sullum recounted this incident, which involved the use of Florida’s red flag gun confiscation policy, which Republican Governor Rick Scott signed it into law following the outrage from the Parkland shooting in 2018.

    Kevin Morgan was initially the victim of this unconstitutional gun grab. Morgan’s estranged wife, Joanie, believed he “was depressed, suicidal, and obsessed with the apocalypse.” She went on to say that he was stockpiling ammunition, food, gold, and guns in preparation for the end times. She even asserted that Morgan was talking about “seeing, hearing, and wrestling with demons.”

    But it didn’t stop there. According to the estranged wife, Morgan had performed a ritual where he rubbed “oils” on their children and their house walls. Further, she alleged that her husband was abusing prescription drugs for chronic pain and openly talked about dismembering his previous wife and threatened to do the same if she ever got on his bad side.

    Based on these claims, Joanie Morgan was able to obtain a temporary domestic violence projection injunction, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation under the Florida Mental Health Act (a.k.a. the Baker Act), and a temporary "risk protection order" under Florida’s current red flag law. The final protection order authorizes the removal of firearms from a person when he is considered a threat to himself or others. In Florida’s case, police and prosecutors are the only parties allowed to submit red flag petitions, but they are not always careful about investigating the allegations by people who may have a grudge. Disgruntled people – spouses, exes, roommates – can make flimsy accusations.

    Rachel Montgomery, a detective with the Citrus County Sheriff's Office, was the law enforcement official who filed a red flag petition against Morgan. Circuit Judge Peter Brigham then issued the ex parte risk protection order on September 18, 2018, six months after Florida's red flag law went into effect. All three of these were ex parte orders. In other words, Morgan did not have a chance to defend himself against the allegations levied against him.

    Montgomery said that she had responded to a complaint from Joanie Morgan claiming her partner had breached the temporary domestic violence protection injunction by going back to the house in Citrus Springs to pick up clothing, medications, "several firearms," and his Ford Mustang. Montgomery briefly summarized the assertions Joanie Morgan made in her various petitions against Kevin Morgan. She asserted that Morgan “has had a decline in mental stability over the last four months" and “displayed erratic [sic] behaviors to include making threats to dismember a former paramour and threats to kill his entire family while yielding [sic] a vial containing a paralytic agent." She continued by noting that "the respondent has purchased several firearms and ammunition during this time period."

    These claims did not add up, however, after Montgomery continued to dig deeper into the case. She discovered there was no basis for the accusation that Kevin Morgan disobeyed the injunction by visiting the house.

    "I determined that it wasn't him that had gone to the house," she said. "It was actually a pool maintenance worker that had been by the house." Regarding the domestic violence injunction, "…the firearms had been transferred prior to his risk protection order,” which meant that there were no guns for Morgan to get from the house.

    Even with the Baker Act petition in, psychiatrist and mental health professionals determined that Kevin Morgan was in stable mental shape and did not require involuntary treatment after he was taken to a mental health facility back in September 2018. At a hearing to determine if Kevin Morgan’s protective orders should be extended, Joannie Morgan’s testimony was emotional, but lacking in evidence. This led to Montgomery admitting that he did not meet the law’s evidentiary standard for confiscating his firearms and committing him to an institution. The judge ended up concurring and threw out the orders.

    After this entire ordeal, Morgan offered his thoughts. The sheriff's office "jumped into a civil action without completing a proper investigation," Morgan said. "I don't think the average person understands just how dangerous these laws are. Hopefully, if my story can get out, folks will see how easily (red flag laws) can be used against someone for revenge or to get an upper hand in (a custody dispute). I want people to know how these laws can be used improperly, in the hope that some reforms will take place. We need protection for falsely accused individuals and stiff punishment for those who abuse the system."

    This case demonstrates why America is a nation of laws and has safeguards to protect the accused from false allegations. Without these measures in place, individuals could see their civil liberties eviscerated by people with an axe to grind or public officials with no desire to comply with laws. In a nation ruled by men, you can bet that gun rights will never be secure.

  • 04/16/2020 10:40 PM | Anonymous

    By Sandy Malone,  Apr 13, 2020

    Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed five anti-gun measures into law and promised to take another run at "assault rifles."

    Richmond, VA – Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed five anti-gun bills into law on Friday as gun control advocates celebrated.

    Northam signed a bill that requires background checks for all firearms sales in the state of Virginia on April 10, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    The governor also signed the re-instatement of a law that limits residents to one handgun purchase per month.

    He put into place a “red flag” law that allows police to take guns away from anyone deemed a danger to themselves or others, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    The batch of new gun control legislation Northam enacted also included a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours and another that increased penalties for leaving a loaded gun accessible to children.

    The governor sent two bills back to the statehouse with technical changes, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    The first included a clarification of an exemption for universities under a bill that allows localities to ban guns in public.

    For the other, Northam suggested that people under a permanent protective order who can’t prove they have given up their guns should be held in contempt of court by judges, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    The governor also vowed to take another run at an "assault weapons" ban in 2021, after more moderate Democrats in the state senate tabled it in February.

    “I have always said that we do not need weapons of war on our streets,” he said.

    Gun control advocates celebrated what have become major changes to the state’s gun laws under the newly-elected Democratic majority in its capitol, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    “Virginians wanted change,” Democratic State House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn told reporters. “We were not leaving Richmond in March without historic progress on gun violence prevention.”

    But the House Republican leader, State Delegate Todd Gilbert, pointed to the fact that gun sales across the state had been through the roof since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

    “To take a victory lap on such a controversial issue at a time when Virginians are buying firearms at a record pace to protect themselves and their families is counterintuitive,” Gilbert said.

    The new laws go in to effect on July 1, The Virginian-Pilot reported.

  • 02/13/2020 11:11 AM | Anonymous

    By Harold Moskowitz

    When France and Great Britain fought each other in the 1790’s, the United States neutrality policy recommended by President Washington was questioned. Some Americans favored France out of dislike for the British and gratitude for French assistance during the Revolution. Others, horrified by reports of bloody executions during the French Revolution, sided with Great Britain.

    The United States had signed a neutrality agreement but France wanted the United States to support them against the British. The government resisted their pressure and instead signed the Jay Treaty with Great Britain which settled old issues. The French reacted by interfering with American shipping. President John Adams sent envoys to France in an effort to diffuse hostility. French diplomats responded by seeking bribe money for granting access to their Foreign Minister and a loan for the French war effort against Britain.

    When news of the French diplomatic actions reached Adams, he requested and was given Congressional funding for a military buildup. A two-year undeclared war with France followed. It is known as the “Quasi-War.” During this time, French naval vessels and privateers attacked our ships. They did all that they could to disrupt American trade with Great Britain.

    In order to finance the ‘Quasi-War,’ Congress needed to raise two million dollars. It chose to impose the only direct tax on personal property in our nation’s history. Known as the “House Tax” (1798), it taxed residential structures, land, and slaves. Each state was to be proportionately responsible for its share of the total. Pennsylvania’s share was $237,000.

    Since there were very few slaves in Pennsylvania, the tax was mostly based upon inhabited residences and land ownership. The taxable amount for homeowners was to be based upon the size of the windows and the number of window panes. Many state residents refused to pay the tax. They claimed that the tax was not being levied equally in proportion to the state’s population as was required by the U.S. Constitution.

    Many of the settlers in the northeastern past of the state were originally from Germany where they had been forced to pay a “Hearth Tax.” It was also disliked because it was for funding a “non-existing” war.

    In Bucks, Lehigh, Northampton, and Montgomery Counties, people began to protest the tax. As during the American Revolution, “liberty poles” were erected. Women even threw hot water down from the second floors of houses onto the agents as they counted and measured windows on the ground floor. John Fries became the leader of the opposition. He began to lead a group of about sixty armed men. Their goal was to prevent tax assessors from carrying out their job. Often, tax agents were intimidated and run out of town. Their lives were threatened.

    Fries told an assessor that if he did not leave, “700 men would be ready to fight to the end.” A few assessors were taken hostage and held for several hours. Upon release, they were threatened with death if they returned. The governor sent the militia to arrest rebels and tax resistors in what became known as “Fries’ Rebellion.”

    Nineteen men were arrested. Fries and 400 men freed them from the custody of a United States Marshal. President Adams called for a militia to be raised. The 1,200 man militia rearrested the 19 freed prisoners. Fries was captured. He and two others were tried for treason. As was the situation in the Whiskey Rebellion (1794) trials, the definition of “treason” was an expanded one. It said that “combining to defeat or resist a federal law was the equivalent of levying war against the United States.”The others were tried for misdemeanors such as “opposition to the House Tax,” “hindering the assessors in their duties,” and “holding unlawful meetings for interfering with the execution of the laws.”

    Forty-one of the arrested men were tried in federal court. Three, including Fries, were found guilty of treason and sentenced to death. Those tried for misdemeanors were convicted except for one. Two days before the execution date, President Adams pardoned the three condemned men as well as those who had been convicted of misdemeanors.

    Fries was seen by many in the nation as a victim of federal power. The handling of the “rebellion” by President Adams damaged the political standing of the Federalist Party. Hostility in Pennsylvania prevented Adams from “carrying” the state in the election of 1800, allowing Jefferson to defeat him. The “House Tax” was repealed in 1802. Armed citizen resistance had made a difference. 

  • 02/13/2020 11:08 AM | Anonymous

    By Henry S. Kramer, Tompkins County, New York

    How do liberties get lost? Does a nation-state slip into dictatorship and totalitarianism all at once? Experience says that it is a slow process in which, bit by bit, we lose our freedoms.

    Unlike many of the readers here, I am not particularly a fan of guns. I live in a fairly safe area and don’t believe that I need to be armed. But I realize that many of my fellow citizens do live where they feel a need for protection and they don’t feel they can rely on law enforcement alone. So, why am I a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and keeping it robust and in place?

    First, because it is an amendment to our Constitution and I believe our Constitution must be upheld. As soon as we lose any of our constitutional rights, all the others become endangered. And consider this, of all the types of property that we have, guns are about the only property that is specifically constitutionally protected (yet we can’t carry them easily from state to state).

    On a practical level, the statistics show that restrictive gun laws just do not work. Faced with restrictive legislation, criminals do not give up their guns and no law is likely to make them do so. Areas like Chicago with strict gun laws do not have lower crime rates, they have high ones. Conversely, areas like Texas which allow concealed carry have much lower crime rates. I do support strong controls on fully automatic weapons, but they have been highly regulated since the 1930’s so that is not an issue any more.

    Pastor Niemoller said of the Nazi regime that when they came for the Jews, he didn’t care as he wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the gypsies, he didn’t care, he wasn’t a gypsy. When they came for him there was no one left to stand up for him. That was an important lesson and an important reason why I stand for all of the Constitution and do not want to see it dismantled bit by bit.

    Admiral Yamamoto, who was the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan in 1941, told the Japanese leaders that they could never invade and occupy the United States. The reason he gave - too many guns in too many hands.

    Now our constitutional republic is under attack. Free speech, gun rights, and even our ability to elect a president and see that president finish his term are under attack. If we are not to become a “banana republic” without the rule of law, we must protect and uphold our constitution - every part of it. Right now, the Second Amendment is under siege. If it goes, how long will it be before our other rights go as well? 

  • 02/13/2020 11:05 AM | Anonymous

    By Attilio A. Contini

    Does anyone care? What will it take for people to realize what is going on and say “enough with this foolishness”? Actually, it is far worse than foolishness. Call it what you want but I say it is down-right and deliberate subversion and, perhaps, even treason. Our very concepts of national security, citizenship and our Constitution are being undermined.

    The elitist leftists call themselves Progressives for a reason. They have a goal, increasing their own power and control, which they systematically and relentlessly work towards with never ending determination. We need to understand that goal and determine if it is right and proper - or even acceptable - for that goal to be entertained and promoted in a constitutional, free, nationalistic, country and society. Our country’s constitution exists for the preservation and protection of the rights and safety of its people – its citizens.

    Society has boundaries, laws and rules for a reason and these laws and rules must be obeyed; without them we have chaos. Unlimited, illegal immigration is making a mockery of our laws and rules. What is the sense of having laws if illegal immigrants are going to be given all the rights and privileges reserved for law abiding citizens and those who play by the rules?

    We have rules to punish people who break the law. Granting privileges to illegal immigrants, such as drivers licenses, creates a snow balling effect that undermines our whole system. How can you deny a citizen the privileged of a driver's license if you give a license to felons who violate immigration laws? To say we must automatically give them a license because they need to drive to work and move about in the community is hypocritical. Now, the proposal in the New York State legislature to automatically register them to vote is an insult and act of national suicide and stupidity. It creates an environment that can destroy the Constitution and norms of society.

    We need to step back and ask why are the extreme radical progressives - and those that enable them - advocating and promoting ideas that are so dangerous. Let's be honest. In my opinion, most progressive politicians - and those enabling them while luring in the shadows - are devoted Socialist and Communists. They want to “Fundamentally change our government”, subvert our Constitution, limit our freedom, and control our lives from the cradle to the grave. They place very little value on human life, except their own. They want gun control not because they want to stop crimes but because they want to render us defenseless. They want to impose a form of government on us that fosters a class society where they, the elite intelligentsia, can control and take advantage of the masses.

    They are bribing and brainwashing the unsuspecting illegal immigrants and other minority groups into supporting them so they can gain total control of our government and alter or destroy the Constitution. They believe the end justifies the means. For some reason they hate our government, our Constitution and everything it stands for.

    It is time they be declared what they are: seditious, sabotaging, criminal, treasonous enemies of our nation, our Constitution, and the American People. They should be identified as threats to our National Security, removed from office, and barred from ever running for or holding public office. 

  • 02/13/2020 11:00 AM | Anonymous

    By Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.

    A hate-filled mentally ill man attacked Hasidic Jews with a machete, in the home of their Rabbi, in the upstate town of Monsey, New York, seriously injuring five. Senate Minority Leader Schumer promptly called for an increase in Federal grants to help secure houses of worship and schools. The attack, New York’s Governor Cuomo said, was due to a “scourge of hate in this country” and Cuomo, never to be outpandered, proposed a new state law, the Hate Crimes Domestic Terrorism Act, which makes illegal that which is already illegal. If Cuomo was being consistent, he would have called for a ban on “assault machetes.”

    New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio, who can out-pander anyone, said, “We New Yorkers have the ability to stop the hatred.” Frighteningly, the mayor thinks, or wants you to think, that he has the power to change people’s feelings. The new “no bail law” in New York State turns many violent offenders loose. But thankfully, this perpetrator of this crime remains in jail on $5 million bail.

    Let’s compare the Democrat response to the machete attack in Monsey with the Newtown, Connecticut shooting. The difference in tone and focus is striking. Immediately after the Newtown shooting and long before the facts were known, Schumer, Cuomo, et al. blamed so-called assault weapons. At the federal level, Schumer pushed for tougher gun control laws, while Cuomo shoved the Safe Act through the state legislature in record time. Boosting funding to make schools a harder target was never a priority. Democrats never blamed alienation or mental health services that don’t reach everyone. Nor did they blame a collapsing moral structure. The focus of their ire was never the shooter, another mentally ill man who stole his mother’s guns and murdered her before going to the Newtown school to slaughter the innocents. No, they blamed guns and, by extension, gun owners. Here in New York, the Safe Act didn’t make schools safer - it made gun ownership harder, which was the point.

    But New York’s ruling ideocracy is at it again with State Senate bill S1412. This monstrosity will require every buyer of a shotgun or long gun to apply for a hunting license first. The bill imposes other burdens such as: taking a 5-hour gun safety course, passing a shooting test with 90% accuracy, notarized proof of a passed drug test and mental health evaluation, and finally, proof of safe storage.

    Meanwhile, New York State continues to hemorrhage population. The latest census data paints a bleak picture. New York has lost 1.4 million people to other states since 2010. Cuomo was governor for 9 of those 10 years. New York lost 77,000 people in 2019. I don’t know the numbers for the 55 counties upstate, but I know that upstate always takes it on the chin.

    The title of this article says it all. We know that the Albany/ Washington ruling class would love to delete the Second Amendment. But Cuomo, never admit it; instead, they say they want to make us safer. They’re obviously lying. Their arrogance knows no bounds; it is gigantic, oceanic, titanic arrogance. Lies and hubris make for bad public policy. Problems are never really defined or solved. People experience the results and they sense that their leaders are dishonest and govern poorly. This is why people flee New York, if they can.  

  • 02/13/2020 10:55 AM | Anonymous

    By Tom Reynolds

    Quite often, the simplest solution to a problem is the best solution.

    In Chapter 11 of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley’s book, “With All Due Respect”, she describes the conditions in South Sudan, a country that has been torn apart by civil war. By the fall of 2017, two million people had been displaced and two million more had fled the country. It is the site of one of the United Nations’ largest and most expensive (and ineffective) peacekeeping missions.

    Thousands of civilians sought refuge near UN peacekeeping bases and the UN set up “protection of civilian sites” outside their gates. These tent cities are ringed by barbed wire and exist in horrible conditions under the unreliable protection of UN peacekeeping troops.

    Violence against women is rampant. UN peacekeeping forces are infamous for raping and abusing women under their care and these are the “good guys”. In these camps, women must venture outside the security of the barbed wire to collect firewood for cooking. Once outside the compound, they are frequently attacked and raped.

    Ambassador Haley had no direct answer to these problems other than continuing to argue for them within and without the U.N. Noble but ineffective.

    I have a simple and direct answer: teach these women to shoot and then arm them with handguns. I’ll bet the women won’t hesitate to use them to protect themselves and their children. Potential rapists will think twice (or several more times) before attacking the women.

    Of course, a proposal such as this will bring howls from the left and all sorts of theories about how badly it would turn out. Realistically, some down-side things would happen, but would it be worse than the status quo? Absolutely not. And being self-reliant and protecting themselves would have a major, positive psychological impact on women for which there is little positive happening in their lives. Remember, guns have done more to make women safe that all the feminist movement in the world.

    My suggestion for this sort of direct solution to a violence problem is equally lost on New York’s governor who won’t allow teachers in New York schools to be armed for fear that the students would be caught in a crossfire. He would prefer that a shooter be allowed to fire at will without any opposition. It doesn’t take a genius, which Cuomo definitely isn’t, to realize that many more student s would be killed by an unopposed shooter than would be injured in crossfire.

    The best real-life answer to Cuomo and the anti-gun left is the recent shooting in a Texas church. In a room packed with parishioners, a gunman opened fire and the incident was over in six seconds! Six seconds! An armed parishioner took out the shooter and several others had drawn their weapons but did not fire, either because they did not have a clear shot or the incident was over before they could shoot. If a police officer had been sitting outside in a patrol car, he could barely have gotten out of the car door before the incident was over.

    An armed populace is a safer populace and gun free zones only protect the criminal. 

  • 02/13/2020 10:32 AM | Anonymous

    By Richard Rossi

    Many of us believe that the anti-gun groups and the media have no actual knowledge of how firearms function. One would believe that theory because of the way the media communicates their agenda to the citizens in our country. On the contrary, I believe they know very well what they are saying.

    Take for example the term “ASSAULT WEAPON”.  True, knowledgeable gun owners know, very well, that is a contrived term. It was, of course, made up for a specific purpose; to invoke emotional support for their agenda. This label plays directly into getting support after any mass shooting event where a semiautomatic rifle was used. I have not believed, for some time, that they are so uninformed about firearms that they don’t truly understand that there is a difference between an Automatic rifle and a Semi-automatic rifle, when they label both as “Assault weapons”.

    Let’s take this a step further. When you listen to national news media reporting involving police activity, they never use the term Assault Weapon when referring to LEO”s armed with “Black Rifles”. They somehow - and I believe intentionally - do not use the term “assault weapon” when talking about these stories. I have heard on many news stories that police armed with rifles are searching the area. Think about that for a minute…

    Furthermore, you will notice that these “assault rifle” stories hit immediately, as the event is unfolding, even if details are not known or unclear about the incident. They need to get a jump on the story to invoke emotional support and outrage. Facts don’t matter, at this point in time, nor is clarification usually made later, as long as it gets broadcast that another mass-shooting with an assault rifle has happened.

    Let’s examine the term “Mass Shooting.” A more appropriate and accurate term, in my opinion, would be “Mass Murder”. However, this wording also does not fit their agenda; they need to include the reference to the weapon in the headline, for obvious reasons. The focus is very simple; one must remove the blame from the individual and place it on the weapon. How can people actually believe that anyone or anything other than the person is solely to blame for these murders? The media wants us to believe that, if we take away an object, the event will not occur. It does not work that way and it never will.

    While I blame the media driven agenda for this attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights and Freedoms, we must share some of the blame. While the media was exonerating the individual for his actions, law-abiding gun owners sat quietly and watched. I am sure many of you are as frustrated with this anti-gun movement as I am. However, we need to be positive and speak-out and speak loudly. Get involved and “talk” with your elected officials at all levels of Government. Change can happen if we work together and are active.  

  • 02/13/2020 10:27 AM | Anonymous

    By Tim Andrews, S.C.O.P.E. At-Large Director

         Do we really have a Second Amendment? Good question and I’m amazed I’ve never read or heard anyone ask that fundamental question. I even googled the question, and the only thing that came up was the text of the Second Amendment and some academic pro and con debates.

         The United States Constitution is the premier law of the land. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is number two, and the common thread of the first ten amendments is that they all pertain to the rights of the individual. We also have two Supreme Court rulings supporting an individual’s right, at least as it exists in the home.

         Yet, despite this, we have literally thousands of laws on the books, both on the federal level and state levels, restricting an individual’s right, and in many cases outright banning an individual’s right to possess certain firearms, including firearm accessories. Many will argue the government has the power to regulate issues pertaining to the Bill of Rights; the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. I would agree to give the government the power to regulate for the common good. The question is, where’s the line? When does regulation become a violation of our Second Amendment? What regulation is acceptable?

         To answer that question, I would argue that regulation begins and ends with criminals and criminal use of firearms and I’d start with someone who’s convicted of a violent felony. If you are convicted of a violent criminal offense you should forfeit your right to possess a firearm. However, it’s also important that Fifth Amendment due process rights are protected so individuals are not unduly prosecuted. I would also argue that any law-abiding citizen who possessed or purchased a firearm legally cannot be prosecuted retroactively.

        We can all agree the very nature of criminal behavior is that they don’t obey laws; whether it’s jaywalking or murder, criminals are not deterred by laws. The trouble is, many of the thousands of gun laws on the books are not targeted at criminals or criminal use of firearms; they’re clearly aimed at law-abiding citizens.

         A few examples are, gun-free zones, which criminals laugh at. They more accurately should be referred to as killing zones. What better place to commit murder than a location where the criminal knows no one else is armed? Then there are bans on firearms, magazines or other accessories. Again, criminals will get what they want. Only law abiding citizens, the ones whose rights are supposedly protected by the Second Amendment are impacted. These are only a small sample as there are many other laws, like them, that not only violate Second Amendment rights but they also violate our right to protect ourselves and our families. Regulation of the Second Amendment should focus on criminals not law-abiding citizens.

         Gun control has always been about people control going back to the black codes that were intended to control freed slaves following the civil war. Then, there was the National Firearms Act of 1934 that, among other things, effectively banned automatic firearms. This was the beginning of the slippery slope when bans became acceptable. The cliche “slippery slope” aptly applies to gun control, just witness how acceptable bans have become with so many.

         So again, I ask, do we really have a Second Amendment? With the influx of red flag laws, do we have a Fifth Amendment which is supposed to guarantee due process rights?

          Given the magnitude of the Bill of Rights, what many constitutional scholars refer to as the supreme law of the land, it’s troubling how easy it is for legislatures to circumvent them. Just look at the restrictions and bans we’ve experienced in New York. And when we have sought relief through the courts, we’ve been met by activists’ courts that distort the intentions of the founders or the courts viewed the constitution as a malleable document that doesn’t really mean what it says.

    Later this year the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the city of New York pistol license law. It could be a landmark decision for gun rights, but the wild card is Chief Justice Roberts, so time will tell. The silver lining is President Trump, who is changing the federal courts with a record number of appointments. If the president is reelected and a GOP majority is reelected in the Senate, he could change the courts for generations. That may very well be the Second Amendments' last hope.

    Until then, it still begs the question, do we really have a Second Amendment?  

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

[ Site Developed By A2Z Enhanced Digital Solutions ]

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software