frontlines

By Tom Reynolds

A popular saying has arisen about the far left’s free giveaways, “Mice don’t understand why the cheese is free until it is too late”.

What does all this free stuff have to do with the Constitution and in particular the Second Amendment? Power and control! Politicians giving away stuff they label as “free” has been a path to obtaining and keeping power even before Franklin Roosevelt made it into a science in the 1930s.

When the government gives away something “free”, it always comes with strings attached. Those strings make the recipients into government puppets and the primary string is forcing the recipient to agree with and support government policies. It is understood that, if the recipient does not go along with the government, the “free stuff” will end.

Put another way, the government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything away.

Politicians love to define the parameters of an issue in limited terms and avoid looking at the bigger picture effects; a view that might reveal problems with their plans. They need the voters to focus narrowly on only what the politicians want the voters to focus. The results of this bigger picture failure are called unintended consequences and these consequences can run far afield of just the “free stuff”. Again, the “free stuff” is only a path to power, it is not the goal of the politician. Once in power, the politician’s goal is to impose their will in other areas, especially the far left and their anti-Second amendment laws.

Imagine if the far left were to seize power in 2020 because they were elected on a “free stuff” platform. Actually, you don’t have to imagine what would happen. Look at New York State as an example of one party using unchecked powers over a broad spectrum of issues. We are in the sixth term for the liberal Cuomo's that sandwich the three terms of RINO Pataki and the disgraced Eliot Spitzer. During these 30-something years, the NY Senate was usually in Republican hands and while they were less than arduous in pursuing conservative and constitutional goals, they did serve to stop most – but not all - of the craziness that was proposed by the NY City liberals. Now, the voters have put the Senate, Assembly and Governorship all in the far left hands, for whatever reason. There is no stopping the craziness: a 2 nd SAFE Act (check); liberalize abortion (check); anti-business laws (check); use government powers against their opponents (check); free stuff for illegal’s (check).

And if New York State isn’t bad enough, California provides another example. Need I go on?

The far left response to “Keep America Great” is “Vote for me and get it free.” As Rush Limbaugh once asked, “How can you vote against Santa Claus?”

Gun owners must educate the public about politicians proposing giveaways and explaining that these are nothing more than a path to power for those that oppose our traditional American values and our 2nd Amendment rights. When debating against the “free stuff” giveaways, it’s not just the cost of these that make them impossible – and the cost really does make them impossible. Voters need to understand the bigger picture; that once the far left are in power, they will do much more than just give away “stuff”. They will impose their deepest, darkest far left desires on the people and one of their most cherished desires is to abolish the 2nd Amendment.  

By Nelson Prince AMAC Magazine

Vol 13 Issue 2

On February 13, 2016, the American people awoke to the unfortunate news that 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away while on a hunting trip in Texas. A stalwart conservative, celebrated for his sharp legal mind and unfailing sense of humor, Justice Scalia left a lasting and indelible mark on the Supreme Court for generations to come. However, as the 2016 Presidential Election entered its final stages, and as the American people prepared to elect a new president, the legacy and future of the Supreme Court became a major focal point of the 2016 election.

Then-candidate Trump, for the first time in US Presidential election history, produced a list of names he would pick from in nominating a replacement to the late, great Antonin Scalia. Concurrently, then-President Barack Obama nominated DC Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Following Judge Garland’s nomination, and the release of President Trump’s list of potential picks to fill the spot on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was on the 2016 Presidential ballot just as much as Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

We all remember President Trump’s historic upset on November 8, 2016. Even more importantly we remember that President Trump kept his promise to nominate and confirm a judge from the list he released during the campaign. Eleven days after his inauguration, President Trump kept his promise and nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Following complete Democratic obstinacy to his nomination, Senate Republicans invoked the ‘Nuclear Option’ to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees, and Justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the High Court by a vote of 54-45.

Just a few months later, Justice Anthony Kennedy shocked the world when he announced that he would retire from the Supreme Court after 30 years of service. President Trump, yet again, delivered on his 2016 campaign promise to nominate a qualified replacement from the aforementioned list. On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Following a tumultuous confirmation process (to put it nicely) Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Court on October 6, 2018 by a vote of 50-48.

While the Supreme Court has occupied the public mind for the last two years of the Trump Presidency, many Americans are unaware of how much President Trump has done to restore the Judicial Branch to its rightful place as a co-equal branch of government. President Trump has nominated and appointed several Constitutionalist judges at every level of the Federal Judiciary, from the High Court, to the circuit courts, to the district courts, to the military courts, to the tax courts. As Washington, DC embroils itself in controversy after controversy, President Trump continues to nominate, and Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) continues to confirm dozens of judges who are committed to the Constitution and rule of law.

At the end of the first two years of the Trump administration, President Trump has nominated, and Leader McConnell has confirmed 92 judges across the federal judiciary, including two Supreme Court Justices, 30 Circuit Court judges, 53 District Court judges, and several other administrative and military judges. In fact, President Trump has far outpaced any of his other predecessors in nominating judges to the federal circuit courts. Think about this, five of the country’s 12 Circuit Courts are now occupied by more than 25-percent of Trump appointed Judges - twenty-five percent.

Most recently, on January 23, 2019, President Trump renominated 51 old judicial nominations from the previous Congress – including two nominations to the notoriously “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court. With Republicans in firm control of the Senate, and with President Trump eyeing the 140+ vacancies still remaining at all levels of the federal judiciary, we can expect both the President and the Senate to continue their tireless work on restoring the Judiciary to its equal, constitutional footing with the other branches of government.

As we head into the 2020 election cycle, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. But, one thing is certain; President Trump will leave a lasting imprint on the Federal Judiciary for generations to come. With strong, dedicated, and Constitutionally-minded judges on every bench in the United States, President Trump will be remembered for his commitment to the Constitution and a return to the rule of law.  

By Tom Reynolds, Treasurer and Past President

We often hear that a coming election is the most important in our lifetime. Like so many phrases, it’s used so much that it loses its impact. But with hindsight, we can see how many of the elections have increased importance because of the results of previous elections. Unfortunately, the good guys didn’t win them all. We did win some at critical points in our history.

Just in our lifetime: what would the United States be like if Jimmy Carter had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1980?; what would this country be like if Newt Gingrich and the “Contract With America” had not taken control of the House of Representatives, stopping Clinton’s leftward tilt? Can you imagine, except in our nightmares, the destruction a ‘President’ Hillary Clinton would have wreaked on America?

Obviously, the above instances were important because we had to stop something dangerous to our national well-being from continuing or happening. That is why I believe the 2020 election will be the most important of our lifetime, supplanting the 2016 election in that position. Something much more dangerous will happen if we lose.

We saw what happened in the USA when Barack Obama came to power in 2008, along with a liberal Congress. We’ve seen this year what happened when the far-left gained complete political power in New York State. We’ve also seen this year the obstructionism and just plain craziness when liberals won the House; the people in power there seem to hate the United States and all it stands for. Worse, they hate our President with a rage that is incredible. In all three instances, traditional constitutional, moral and religious values were trashed as they took what they believed was their opportunity to fundamentally change our nation and our state.

Think what will happen to the 2nd Amendment if any of the far left presidential candidates were to become President. Even if one of them proclaimed their love for the 2nd Amendment during their campaign, once elected, they would be surrounded by people that have made destroying the 2nd Amendment as well as so many other freedoms loved by this country a centerpiece of their political careers.

Need an example of a politician who dramatically changed colors on the 2nd Amendment? Kristen Gillibrand. Oh wait, isn’t she running for President? Or at least she was as I wrote this.

Congressional candidates may make convincing statements about their love for the 2nd amendment – again, while campaigning – but once in office the liberal leadership in the House will quickly cause a change in position.

It is difficult to imagine any of the far-left candidates speaking at the NRA national convention, as President Trump has done. We can’t blame them for that; who wants to be booed?

The difference in values between President Trump and all his potential opponents is absolutely clear. Unfortunately, the difference between many other Republicans and their Democratic opponents is less clear. (The term RINO comes to mind.) This fuzziness makes it more difficult to inspire hesitant potential voters to get out and vote for “The Lesser of Two Evils”. The fuzziness also makes it difficult for those of us who always vote to become more active in politics. (My own Congressman has made a career of being the “Lesser of Two Evils”.)

If we are to save the 2nd Amendment (and probably the Constitution) it will require a multi-year effort. For the next seventeen months, we need to work to regain control of the House and keep control of the Senate and the Presidency at the federal level. Once that is accomplished, we need to organize and ‘primary’ out of office the RINO’s, both federally and in this state.

It’s a big task in front of us that will require toil, time and money. Thankfully, we have the far-left leadership helping us to inspire people to vote against them. It’s not a sin to vote against someone who is out to destroy all our traditions and values.

To quote Winston Churchill, “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.” We must ‘stiffen our upper lips’ and get serious or lose everything.  

By Nick Massal S.C.O.P.E. President

“If we do not hang together, we will most assuredly hang separately!” Sound familiar? Those words were uttered by Ben Franklin almost 250 years ago. What is the significance of those words today?

The NRA is having internal problems with the board and about spending money – where have we seen this before? The NRA is also under attack by the governor of New York and his attorney general. If you did not already know it, Governor Andrew Cuomo hates gun owners! He also hates Christians and conservatives (he said so himself) and declared that they have no place in New York.

So, what do we do about it? Roll over and die? I’m sorry but that’s not the way I roll (pun intended)!

We have a Democratic party that for the most part is turning socialistic and the Republican Party seems to be sitting back, not answering the call and appears to be fragmented (look how many do not support the President). The President is an outsider. He does not “owe” people in politics a lot of favors so he cannot be controlled that way. Despite not being one of the “good old boys” he has more public support than most of them.

Perhaps it’s the news media that is not bringing the whole story of both parties to the light of day so we can all see what is going on – most of us are sick and tired of “their” spin and would like the news straight up. The media is out to sell stories and advertising. That’s how they make their money and stay in business. Both sides of the media put out a headline to catch our attention regardless of what the underlying story is – human nature.

What can we do? We as 2nd Amendment organizations need to support one another as much as possible in any way possible – we are all in this together and we must stick together. Yes, we have differences. We always will, but fundamentally we are all fighting for the same thing: to stop the encroachment on our God-given rights – the “Right to keep and bear arms”. The government did not give these rights to us. We already had them and the 2nd Amendment merely affirms this right and is a restriction on government not to infringe upon them.

Give what you can to the NRA and other organizations including our own. Call your NRA reps and tell them what you think and why. If you feel the that the executive vice president needs to go, tell them why. If you are a voting member of the NRA, know your board members and vote for those that will do the right thing. These organizations represent you and me. We need to speak up or things will not change for the better.  

By Harold Moskowitz

A “blacklist” is a compiled list of “undesirables” to be cut off from a basic necessity. It was once used by Pennsylvania coal mine owners. They compiled and shared lists of “trouble makers” who had been identified as union organizers. Being blacklisted prevented a man from being able to find work. In our time, blacklisting has advanced from unionbusting to the cutting off of credit and to interference in legal commerce.

The financial industry has become an increasing danger to the firearms industry. Allum Bokhari at Breitbart News has investigated financial blacklisting. He has stated that: “Thanks to the encroachment of progressive ideology into the financial industry – including major credit card companies like VISA, Discover, and Mastercard -- it has become a reality.”

Our 21st century economy depends upon access to credit and, in our increasingly cashless society, to be able to have credit card purchase transactions processed. This reality gives the relatively few corporations providing these necessities tremendous power through financial blacklisting. Pressure can be exerted on firearm-related companies to act in certain proscribed ways to avoid being dropped as a financial services customer.

In Spring 2018, First National Bank of Omaha stopped offering the NRA VISA card. Republic Bank ended the NRA VISA Prepaid Card. Bank of America refuses to work with any company producing “military style firearms.” J.P.Morgan Chase limits business with gun companies. CitiBank refuses to service any retailer which sells “high capacity” magazines or sells firearms to adults younger than 21. Bank of America has cut off services to any firearms maker producing or selling military style weapons for civilians. It also requires firearm retailers to perform background checks on customers. None of the firearms sales may be to adults younger than 21. Failure to meet these requirements will result in termination of financial services. It has also hinted at future requirements for gun manufacturing clients which might dictate the types of permissible firearms and which retailers would be allowed to sell those firearms.

One major bank resisted pressure from the New York Times and others to show “corporate responsibility.” In October, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank granted a $40 million line of credit to Sturm, Ruger and Company. According to Bloomberg News, this was in addition to the $431 million in financing that Wells Fargo had already given to gun companies since 2012. In an open letter, the management wrote that “the bank does not believe that the American public wants banks to decide which legal products consumers can and cannot buy.” Wells Fargo should be applauded and rewarded for its “backbone” with our patronage.

Not satisfied with these types of unwarranted interference with legal commerce, the Times in December, 2018 tried to exert pressure on credit card issuers to monitor customers’ firearm-related buying habits and to blacklist gun purchases. It suggested that banks “unwittingly finance mass shootings” by allowing individuals to use their cards for the purchase of firearms. It wants credit card companies to put systems in place to detect firearm purchases and to either decline them at the point of sale or to flag them to see how much money an individual is spending on guns. Their goal is for credit card issuers and card transaction processors to collectively set new rules for the sale of guns. All of this pressure is based upon the Progressive Left’s value of “corporate responsibility.”

Under the “social responsibility” banner, Pay Pal, Square, Stripe, and Apple Pay, already are refusing to allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms. Now, the Times is pressuring the biggest customers of these payment processing companies. Corporations like McDonald’s, Starbucks, Amazon, CVS and others that publicly refer to “social responsibility” are urged to collectively pressure the payment processing companies to end the handling of gun sale transactions. What would stop this type of pressure from eventually extending to restrictions of the purchases of ammunition types, accessories, and even reloading equipment?

The Progressive Liberals, socialists and Marxists among us realize that they cannot impose their dystopian, tyrannical utopia on the nation until the potential for determined, effective armed resistance through the Second Amendment has been rendered impossible. After each incident of multiple homicide perpetrated by mentally disturbed individuals in gun-free zones, they incrementally chip away at the ability of the citizenry to remain armed in a meaningful way.

This article has focused upon financial blacklisting, a “pincer movement” in the Progressive Left’s multi-front war on the Second Amendment. If they succeed, this nation will be at a “tipping point.” Not just commercial entities are potentially endangered by this assault on freedom. Could your personal credit card be terminated in the future by its issuer because of your monitored donations to the NRA or to other groups which credit card companies might view with contempt?

To quote again from Allum Bokhari: “… to be shut off from an entire financial system. That is the terrifying new threat to freedom that Western society must now contend with.” 

Tom Reynolds, S.C.O.P.E. Treasurer

One thing that should irritate everyone is a statement taken out of context to create an invalid impression; an impression counter to one we would get if made in context.

Why is this concept of “in context” so important to Second Amendment advocates?

The “in context” principle should apply when interpreting our Constitution. Each individual part should be interpreted in the overall context within which the Constitution was written and that context is, beyond any reasonable doubt, to narrowly limit the federal government’s power. Even the far left that advocates an all-powerful federal government are conceding this when they argue the Constitution is out of date and needs changing. They are, in fact, agreeing that the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government that they wish to expand.

The Second Amendment says that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but taken in the context of a Constitution which limits federal power, it also implies that a limited federal government has not the power to chip away at that right.

And before anyone gets excited about the states having this power, the Fourteenth Amendment says:“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Therefore, every state law is also subject to the “in context” concept of how our privileges and immunities are interpreted.

Let’s look at the framing of our Constitution in an historically accurate context to prove my point about limited government.

During and after the Revolutionary War, the 13 former colonies became states. Not states as we think of them now, but “Nation States”. Each state viewed themselves as self-governing sovereign states, but they also saw the need for some sort of cooperative arrangement, so they adopted the Articles of Confederation to define their relationship. Words have meanings and a confederation is a union of sovereign states, united for purposes of common action.

A later example of nations preserving their individuality while engaging in cooperative actions was during World War II. The “Allies” consisted of many sovereign countries: USA, England, France, Poland, etc. No one believes these countries gave up their individual status as sovereign countries by uniting against Germany, Italy and Japan.

After the Revolutionary War, the “Nation States” preserved their individuality but within a few years it became evident that the thirteen “Nation States” needed a stronger arrangement than a confederation, for self-protection and for economic reasons. But these “Nation States” had a great fear of a powerful central government trampling on State’s and individual’s rights. So, they built many elements into the Constitution to prevent a runaway government. Examples of what we refer to as “Checks and Balances” are: three coequal branches of government; a legislative branch divided into two houses each representing different constituencies; the Electoral College; voting on a contested Presidential election.

Fear of a strong government almost stopped the Constitution from being approved by the states until a Bill of Rights was promised. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights being needed as they believed the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to take away those rights. (Thank goodness they lost that argument about the need for a Bill of Rights.) Many people will be surprised to know that New York State was one of the “Nation States” that would not approve the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was promised.

The first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights have to do with protecting our individual rights from the government while the tenth amendment takes another tack and gives further evidence that the Constitution was meant to limit the federal government’s power. Number ten says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by it to the States respectively, and to the people”.

The idea of a constitutionally limited government held sway until Franklin Roosevelt became President – although an earlier President, Woodrow Wilson, would also have shredded the Constitution if he had been more capable. Roosevelt used the Great Depression crisis to destroy the Tenth Amendment and 140 years of limited federal government precedent.

An example of one part of the Constitution being interpreted out -of-context of a limited government was FDR’s overuse of the “Commerce Clause”. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce…among the several states…” Roosevelt’s administration said that a farmer was engaged in interstate commerce even though the farmer did not sell his products in interstate commerce and only sold them locally or used them himself. FDR’s rationale was that by not engaging in interstate commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce. FDR’s insane trampling of the Constitution was only possible with the help of the other branches of the government as the Supreme Court upheld FDR’s decision!

Those of us who are constitutional fundamentalists – like Justice Antonin Scalia - believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in line with the meaning of the words when they were written. If those words need changing or updating to provide for a more powerful government, there is a way of amending it by approval of the States. It is not subject to judges amending it for any reason, no reason, or political reasons.

When an amendment is approved, it becomes as much a part of the Constitution as the first seven articles that were originally approved. The Amendments are not an add-on that can be ignored at will. They are the Constitution and a limited federal government does not have the power to infringe on them. Any interpretation of any part of the Constitution must be made with the acknowledgement that the Constitution very narrowly limits the ability of the federal government or state governments to infringe on our rights. 

Rob McNally, Chairman of the Board & Tim Andrews, Board Member at Large

In recent years we’re all aware of the concerns many have regarding a clear understanding of our country’s traditions and values — whether it’s disrespecting our flag or our national anthem. It can be blamed on poor parenting or even our educational system. Why is there such disregard for our country’s traditions and values? What is the solution? It takes little to point the finger of blame or to rally like minds to the faults of this country. It takes another approach altogether to develop solutions for those problems.

Organizations are made of various personalities. Sometimes those personalities disagree with how to implement solutions to problems, or worse, spend time pointing those fingers rather than developing the necessary solutions to society’s ills. Typically, when that happens splits occur. The best example of this is how our religious denominations have occurred over the centuries. The only time such a division occurs is when there is a split in philosophy, not so much in the ultimate goal.

We have recently experienced just such events within groups of Second Amendment supporters and their organizations. Ultimately, the goal still remains the same. The only difference is in how those in the various organizations believe we should get there. Thus far, none of us have been all that successful. I will advocate that we need to refocus on working together rather than focusing on the differences between us. Too many times those differences are the focus and drive any discussion. Unfortunately, even four or five voices focusing on differences distract the bulk of the organization from the ultimate goal. Truly, if the goal is the ultimate destination, then why should the focus be on intermediate obstacles? Address such obstacles, determine solutions for the good of the organization and move on.

As Tony Robbins has said, “Stay committed to your decisions, but stay flexible in your approach.” Financial responsibility is certainly a key factor in any organization, but when that focus over-takes the organization’s focus, those involved lose track of pursuing revenue and other activities necessary in the final goal. For Second Amendment organizations such as our own, that final goal is restoring rights that have and are being removed from us consistently. Not only the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, but also those guaranteed under the First Amendment particularly the right to ‘petition the government for a redress of grievances’; the Fourth Amendment ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures’; the Fifth Amendment ‘…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’; the Ninth Amendment ‘The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’; the Fourteenth Amendment ‘….No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’…. The point here being that fiduciary responsibility is not in and of itself our goal, but an avenue toward that goal and a responsibility to our members. While focusing on that responsibility and maintaining its integrity, we must still pursue revenue to progress toward the ultimate goal.

As we all know, it takes revenue to make things happen. The thing that most allows revenue pursuit is commitment to the ultimate goal; not revenue pursuit in and of itself. That commitment requires allthose people this article began about. EVERY organization, EVERY person who is willing to focus on the goal. No organization can afford to be waylaid by those who do not demonstrate this commitment. The Scottish author William Hutchison Murry once said “Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.”.

The point that needs be made here is we must all, every Second Amendment organization, be unified and committed in that ultimate goal while pursuing different avenues of approach to it. Meanwhile, every member of individual organizations must be committed internally to one another. We cannot afford to pursue distracting avenues which misdirect us from our ultimate goal…. the violation of rights which we are experiencing as mentioned previously. No one organization, or subdivision of an organization, can hope to have any true result toward that goal without such commitment. An American writer, John D. MacDonald was quoted as saying “At times it seems as if arranging to have no commitment of any kind to anyone would be a special freedom. But in fact, the whole idea works in reverse. The most deadly commitment of all is to be committed only to one’s self. Some come to realize this after they are in the nursing home.”

In other words, our strength is in our unity, not our differences. Commitment is primary and the goal of resurrecting our lost rights the ultimate goal. That entails several factors. Our members; their involvement and their commitment; their willingness to get involved beyond the basic membership level. Their seeking opportunities to become further involved beyond their membership fees. The voters; shifting the apathy and lack of confidence that exists these days in the ‘system’. Education (the last word in our acronym S.C.O.P.E.) comes down to a one-onone scenario more often than not. Unfortunately, the bulk of our society does not greatly involve itself in publications, social media or internet access to the news. We are awash daily in information, but a minority of people actually engage in it beyond the briefest exposure. Much like ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’ are two distinctly different functions.

So join us! Or join another organization better to your liking! But actually ‘join’ beyond putting membership fees forward and expecting someone else to commit for you. Take that commitment upon yourself. With your time or with your money, or both. Spread the word. Become a leader, an organizer, or participate on the local level in getting out and conversing with those who have chosen apathy or action. Get involved! We ALL need you. We need your commitment! As tennis great Martina Navratilova said so well, “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

Your donations can be submitted at https://scopeny2a.org/donate-to-SCOPE. Your interest in volunteering can be directed to your local chapter chair or your other Directors on the Board at the state level. All contacts are listed on our website.

By Michael Giuliano

A re-engaged membership and a peaceful succession to the office of President (although many of us still hedged our bets and bought some gun raffle tickets) marked the S.C.O.P.E. annual meeting on April 27 in Syracuse. Nick Massal was elected President. The other officers were reelected for another term. Battle plans were formulated. Members and directors left their respective meetings with new ideas to reach and educate the public and local elected officeholders.

While a comparison to James Monroe’s so-called Era of Good Feelings might seem overblown, few opportunities for such comparison have presented themselves in New York State of late. The S.C.O.P.E. membership should adopt the example of Monroe and the renewed national spirit at the end of the War of 1812 as a guide for our own collaboration and development of an action plan. S.C.O.P.E. needs a renewed optimism to grow and thrive. At the meeting, there was a vigorous exchange of ideas and proposals, and the sense abounded that our efforts this year will be supported by a solid lineup of leaders across the state.

Among the presentations delivered to the membership, Wayne County S.C.O.P.E. led the charge, offering a progress update on the drafting of a model resolution/ ordinance for county and town boards, commissions, and legislatures throughout Western and Central New York, that will reaffirm the officeholders’ commitment to due process and gun rights. The painstaking efforts by Don Smith and Bob Brannan on this initiative was quite evident as are the efforts of many others both within and outside of S.C.O.P.E. who are working tirelessly on it.

Several chapter chairs were partaking in their first statewide board meeting and a vibrant discussion was had on various suggestions for improvements within the organization. The meetings produced spirited debate; the discussions were wide-ranging and included fundraising proposals.

Monroe County Chair Gene Nolan reported on his chapter’s recent meetings with several legislators. Among the hot topics of discussion that arose at one of Monroe’s recent meetings was the ever-popular idea of dividing New York. He also proposed some alternative chapter funding methods.

An issue critical to the organization’s future arose during the discussions: Should S.C.O.P.E. reach out more overtly to those who support other fundamental freedoms such as free speech and due process? A potential update to the S.C.O.P.E. mission statement was proposed by new Wyoming chairman Gary Gardner. The new statement, if adopted, would reaffirm our commitment to the many other rights within the Bill of Rights, including due process which is so beleaguered in New York. This might broaden S.C.O.P.E.’s popular base of support to include those who aren’t specifically pro-gun.

Prominently absent in Syracuse was 2nd Vice-President Jack Prendergast, as he was on an assigned mission, as a Yates Republican official, to rid us of Ed Cox. His punishment for being absent however, inflicted by the board in absentia, was to be nominated for another year in his V.P. position.

1st Vice-President Andrea Elliot inspired us with her interpretation of the struggles we face and the perseverance we must maintain. Tim Andrews’ term as President expired and he was elected to an at-large position on the board.

The late-meeting assurance by Budd Schroeder that he would remain a cantankerous gun rights advocate may not sound like a harmonious note, but one had to be present at the meeting to realize that it added bite and punctuation to an optimistic S.C.O.P.E. assembly.

Budd announced his retirement from the board of directors effective in May, timed to coincide with his 54th anniversary with S.C.O.P.E. It was Schroeder’s waggish promise to remain “mean” (his word) and irascible in retirement that in some ways capped the dual meetings in Syracuse. Indicating he still planned to stay active with Firing Lines and political debate, he wished everyone well and praised the quality of the new board and leadership.

The announcement framed a perfect opportunity both to reflect on S.C.O.P.E.’s long history and to concentrate on the future.

As we prepared to part, Nick Massal, as the new President, addressed the assembled board and members. Offering his plans for the year, he reminded everyone of the challenging work that is ahead for all members.

Much has been accomplished since 1965 and yet so much more remains to be done. Albany would have it no other way. The struggle is never over. Liberty must always be guarded.

With the retirement of Budd Schroeder, and with Tim Andrews having finished his terms as President, a S.C.O.P.E. founder and a longtime S.C.O.P.E. leader leave the duty of engaging the future to S.C.O.P.E.’s newly-elected leader Nick Massal—and indeed, they leave this responsibility to all of us.  

By Nick Massal S.C.O.P.E. President

What can we/I do? This is a question I have asked myself quite a few times – the immediate answer is nothing. First, we didn’t get to this point overnight – it has been a work in progress by those who wish to take away our rights and establish control. I could go into the biblical explanation that you should have known this was coming, the Bible explains it, and we cannot stop it. That doesn’t mean we roll over and play dead and let them win. It may be happening, but it doesn’t mean we have to let it happen – the exact timetable is not given and we are told to resist evil.

As I said, we didn’t get this way over night and we are not going to get things back to the way they should be over night. They knew “we” would not stand for a mass change and a big grab all at once – too obvious and massive resistance immediately – revolt. As it was explained to me years ago, if you have a large chub of bologna and someone steals a large chunk of it, you will notice it right away and go after the thief to try to recover your loss. BUT – if the thief comes and takes a very thin slice now, a thin slice later and another later on, you will not notice until much later and by then there may not be much you can do except preserve what you have left – this is our present predicament.

Can we get all of our rights back? Possibly, but it IS highly unlikely. We can get most of them back. It is possible that we get all of them. We need to work at it and we will have to do it incrementally. The (UN) SAFE Act was one of those big chunks they took in the dark of the night (literally) and having activist judges in place helped them ensure the law stayed on the books. Now we need to continue to chip away at the statute. It will be a slow process. The best way is through the ‘E’ in S.C.O.P.E. We must educate politicians, the public, and the news media.

We have all heard about taking a liberal shooting to educate him or her on firearms and the fun of shooting. My advice: Do It. Also take your local politicians and judges shooting – some chapters have already done so with great success. Some of us have politicians and judges that are already pro-gun. Take them anyways and have some good conversation about the possible solutions you each might have. You never know where this may take us!

Know any reporters? Invite them to go shooting. Like anyone else you would take out shooting, teach them safety in shooting, proper techniques, and good shooting etiquette. Answer their questions and be honest.

Even if you don’t know (but know of) a reporter, contact your local newspaper, radio station or TV station and see if you can contact one of them. It doesn’t necessarily have to be for an article, but it may lead to one. If you can get several to come at one time and need assistance in teaching them the basics, get a qualified instructor to assist you and make a day of it at your local shooting range.

Above all, be courteous and exercise great care, especially on the range with live ammunition. The last thing we need is some sort of accident on the range while trying to show liberals the fun and quality of the shooting sports. We are trying to inform and educate – win them over if possible. If nothing else, they will see we are the responsible citizens that we have always been, fighting for our rights including gun rights and due process.  

By Ralph Esposito

Yes, with the loss of the NYS senate to total democrat control last election, NY gun owners are starting to feel the love from Governor Cuomo and his minions. They have introduced and are in the process of passing a number of new gun control laws under the so called “SAFE Act 2.” These include:

• Red Flag laws that could revoke your Second Amendment Rights if you are suspected of being a risk to yourself or others. This includes reporting from your family doctor (s) or children's teachers.
• Going from a 3 to 30 day waiting periods for those who get a delay on a NICS check. With today's extensive data bases on all of us and computer information retrieval 30 days is excessive. 
• Prohibit teachers and other employees from carrying licensed handguns on school property even if it was permitted by the school district. 
• Banning bump stocks. While not a big thing it does set precedent for banning features and accessories. 
• Mandatory storage of all firearms owned in an approved gun safe 
• Mandatory liability insurance if you own a gun. 
• Background checks for ammunition. 
• Limits on ammunition purchases for some guns. Purchases will be allowed only 3 times a year. Also limiting the amount purchased to twice the guns capacity. 
• Banning guns made with the 3D printing technology.

Some of these have passed others are going through committee now. With the democrats in control those that have not already passed stand a high likelihood of passing.

All is not lost as there are several lawsuits challenging specifics of the SAFE Act still in litigation. We even had a win recently when the ban on stun guns in NYS was struck down. The court ruled that stun guns may not be banned, however the state may place restrictions on them. Stay tuned for the 2019 roller coaster.