Menu
Log in
SCOPE NY

frontlines

  • 08/13/2018 12:02 PM | Anonymous

    By Budd Schroeder

    The misnomer of "gun violence" keeps running through the liberal media and is voiced in the broadcast channels as buzz words to take the focus off criminals and place it on an object which, in reality, is a tool. Most tools can be used violently as weapons such as an ordinary hammer. Using it to build a house makes it a tool. Using it to crush someone's head makes it a weapon. Whether the criminal uses a gun or a hammer as a weapon the result is a dead person. 

    Granted, there have been no reports of hammers being used in mass murders, but the concept remains that no tool is a weapon unless an evil person takes control of it. One of the largest number of victims of a mass murder was caused by a Molotov Cocktail in a social club in the Bronx a couple of decades ago. Close to a hundred people were killed in that crime. 

    Recently, in Europe, many people were killed by an evil person driving a truck through a heavily populated section of the city. The victims were equally as dead as those who were shot in Paris. The tool is only an instrument. The violence is strictly a human caused event. There is no argument that there are too many evil people in society. No evil, no violence. Maybe, but the liberal left will argue that if we had stricter gun control laws, we would have less violence. 

    Those who argue against that premise will claim that horrific violence occurred throughout history long before the invention of firearms. The Bible tells how the Kings of Israel killed people by the tens of thousands. While it could be argued that the numbers don't matter because God commanded the Kings to "slay His enemies." When it comes to a report of deaths in that way, the tellers usually shy away from using the term, "murder." 

    Regardless of whether or not the killing was sanctioned by a government or was committed by a criminal, people died. There is only one degree of death. A person either is or isn't. Near death is "still alive." "Recently died" is still "totally dead." Death can come in many ways from many actions. Medical malpractice on an annual basis, by a huge margin, exceeds the death by gunfire. Deaths caused by accidents, illness and substance abuses are responsible for more deaths than gunfire. 

    So, is there a solution to the problem of the "gun violence?" If there is one. it has to be focused on people, not guns. The term should be changed to "criminal misuse of firearms." That would be much more accurate and place the focus and efforts on those who misuse firearms for violent and evil purposes. 

    There is a problem with trying to convince criminals not to be violent. In the first place, many murders are "crimes of passion" or "they didn't think they would be caught" and commit the crime. Some sociologists think the crime is a result of society not dealing with the problem which involves the study of family structure, poverty, or other excuses for bad behavior leading to violent actions. 

    Regardless, the focus is on more "gun control" and even if it doesn't work, the liberal politicians and media try to convince the public that such things as universal background checks, banning certain guns because of their appearance or features and even banning high capacity magazines will reduce the number of homicides. They conveniently overlook the obvious problem that criminals don't obey laws. 

    If bans worked, Prohibition would have successfully ended drunken fights, alcoholism, and the other social problems that involve alcohol, like drunken driving, as well as the illnesses associated with alcohol. 

    Illegal drugs are banned, so we shouldn't have any problems with drug abuse, right? Try again. Drug overdoses account for far more deaths than homicides involving guns. Obviously, gun control laws don't affect criminals either. So, the answer has to be people oriented and the focus should be on discouragement for the use of guns in crime. 

    Using simple math of the number of guns and gun owners in America versus the number of people misusing firearms, the misuse comes out to about one-quarter of one percent. That's a real minority of problem people who own guns. 

    A thought that might be much more effective is to amend the criminal justice laws regarding violent crime. Presently, if a person commits a violent crime with a gun, the charge may be increased a degree or two regarding the length of the sentence. In other words, if a criminal robs a bank or a person the charge increases the length of the sentence. 

    What would happen if that was changed to a charge that if a gun was used in a violent crime, there would be an additional five years added to the sentence for the robbery or assault? It would be one charge for the crime without the degrees presently used. No, buy one, get one free, in the sentencing. 

    The second thought would be to add to the list of conditions that make a murder one charge, the crime of a drive by shooting that results in a homicide. What can require more intent than talcing a gun in a car to drive around for the purpose of killing someone? If Greg the Gunslinger does this, he will never get out of prison. That could be a real incentive to not do it. It also could give powerful leverage to the DA if he wanted a plea bargain and save the taxpayer the cost of an expensive trial. 

    Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control would make more sense. 

  • 08/13/2018 11:40 AM | Anonymous

    By Tom Reynolds

    Napoleon is credited with saying that he would rather fight allies than be an ally. During World War 2, General Eisenhower would probably have heartily agreed with that sentiment as he tried to balance Patton, Montgomery, Churchill and DeGaulle. During twenty nine years as a corporate executive, I saw numerous instances of this, so it should not have surprised me - but it did - to discover the conflict between SCOPE and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, two organizations sharing the same goal of protecting the Second Amendment. 

    Immediately before being elected SCOPE's President in July, I was asked several times what I would do about the divisive relationship between SCOPE and NYSRPA. Privately, I was later told by one former officer that there was zero chance of reconciliation and, frankly, I believe there were those that did not want to see reconciliation. But it was evident that the majority of SCOPE' s board did want to see NYSRPA and SCOPE work together and it was evident to me that we should not be fighting each other. As I often expressed during my career about internal struggles, the enemy is not others in the same organization. SCOPE and NYSRPA should have been criticizing the Cuomos, Clintons and Obamas of the world, not each other. 

    Soon after the July meeting, some SCOPE members and a NYSRPA member arranged a meeting between Tom King, the CEO of NYSRPA. and me. A few others from both organizations were also present. Contrary to what some believe, this was the very first time that Tom King and I spoke to each other. Given the history between the two organizations, the meeting was kept very confidential. It is fair to say that everyone in the room approached the meeting with caution. Not cautious optimism, but just caution. 

    Over the course of several hours, we agreed that we could not change the past but it was in everyone's interest to move forward along parallel paths. (This was easy for me since I had no history in this but it took a lot of self-discipline and commitment for others who had endured the past few years.) We knew we may not be able to work together on everything but we could and should be moving along parallel paths in pursuit of our mutual goal, the defense of the Second Amendment. If the opportunity arose to work together, we would do it but we were and would continue to be two separate organizations that share a mutual goal. We would keep each other informed so that we stayed on those parallel paths and we also agreed that there might be times when we agree to disagree, but not to do it publicly. 

    When I looked around the room at the beginning of the meeting, some of the body language was not encouraging and there were soon a few tough words exchanged. But by the end of the meeting, people were telling jokes and swapping stories. We agreed that Tom King and I would continue our discussions and begin to take "baby steps" together. Very importantly, we recognized that someone from our organizations would probably unilaterally break the truce and if that happened that Tom King and I would talk to each other and work things out rather than immediately blasting the other. We also agreed to keep this confidential for the time being as we had no idea where it would lead. This confidentiality became very difficult for me, as I will explain. 

    Shortly after the meeting, I saw a draft of the Firing Lines which contained an article criticizing NYSRPA. My heart sank. Somehow, I had to quietly kill it without telling anyone about what had already occurred. Thankfully, Ralph Esposito, who handles Firing Lines, foresaw that the article would kill any possible future reconciliation and he pulled it. 

    Then a public test occurred when an email was broadly distributed that criticized Tom King. I quickly got hold of Tom and it was obvious he was not pleased - and he had every right not be pleased. But I explained this was one rogue letter writer and not reflective of SCOPE. He graciously held off on any return fire and I viewed this as the first real test of our relationship - and it had survived. Without knowing what was happening behind the scenes, several SCOPE members publicly condemned the email which further negated any need for Tom King to respond. A real negative had a positive result. 

    There were smaller issues that were quickly resolved and some quiet cooperative interactions. King and I stayed in contact, discussed issues and shared our thinking on state and national politics and ideas for the future. In late October, a group of us again met face to face and Tom King and I recently had a post-election meeting in Albany. We have been very open in our discussions and I am more than encouraged by the possibilities. 

    I was most surprised that we were able to keep this effort confidential until October when Tom King spoke at a SCOPE meeting in Canandaigua; I fully expected leaks before then. When news of the Canandaigua meeting was announced, I was free for the first time to discuss the ·details of what had happened at SCOPE's October board meeting. I was pleased that the board unanimously voted to encourage our actions and to condemn any attempts to sabotage our efforts. Just before the election, SCOPE and NYSRPA issued a mutual press release about the election which probably raised some eyebrows to see it signed by Tom and me. 

    SCOPE and NYSRPA continue to explore ways that the defense of the Second Amendment can be strengthened through our mutual efforts. There are some who still remember the bad old days but they are a shrinking minority. As I wrote earlier, we are two separate organizations who want to take advantage of the strengths that a united front brings to defense of the Second Amendment. The gun grabbers who were exulting in the divisions between our organizations have reason to fear what we can accomplish together. The energy formerly wasted can now be directed where it belongs. 

  • 08/13/2018 11:16 AM | Anonymous

    By Tom Reynolds

    The USA Today Network article "Crime Guns Flow To NY" was based on a report of the New York attorney general. The article was an ode to greater gun control laws as it tried to convince the reader that ''New York's gun woes are the result of other states' porous laws." 

    Andrew Cuomo was quoted, " ... someone can hop into a car, buy a gun just over the border and bring it back to commit a crime." Barack Obama previously said, " ... it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than to get his hands on a computer or even a book." 

    As usual, the anti-gun rhetoric has little factual basis. 

    Under 1968's Gun Control Act, gun-selling businesses must be Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and must obey federal and state restrictions. FFLs cannot sell firearms to prohibited persons (felons, etc.), cannot ship a firearm to a person in another state if doing so violates that state's law, cannot sell a gun to a person known to re::iide in another state, must obtain disclosures from the purchaser on a federal form and must perform a background check on the purchaser. 

    Can it be the infamous "gun show loophole" that politicians are blaming? Since an FFL is subject to the same rules when making a sale at a gun show and many gun shows require private sales to follow FFL rules, there is no loophole there. Imposing "waiting period" laws on gun shows would be de-facto bans on gun shows; that, of course, is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants to achieve as an end run around the Constitution. 

    In two studies of more than 200,000 prison inmates who used guns when committing their crimes, Caroline Wolf Harlow, of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, found less than 1 percent of the guns were obtained at gun shows, while almost 80 percent of their guns came from family, friends, illegal and street sources. 

    As to the effectiveness of the NY Safe Act, Harlow's study showed about 12 percent of the inmates used long guns, and only some of these guns are banned by the Safe Act. 

    That leaves only private sales to blame. The report and article blame Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida as the main culprits because of their weak gun laws. But Pennsylvania and North Carolina, like New York. also mandate that private handgun sales go through the same background check as FFLs. 

    Barack Obama wants universal background checks and said existing background checks " ... have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun." There he goes again! Over 96 percent of these rejected people did legally get their hands on a gun because the initial denial was wrong, a false positive, primarily because of a similar name. 

    Anti-gun politicians mindlessly pursue the eradication of the Second Amendment and constantly r~mind us that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." 

  • 08/09/2018 4:08 PM | Anonymous

    May 24, 2018

    by Tim Andrews, President, S.C.O.P.E.

    Dear SCOPE Member,

    Congratulations!

    Yesterday, we sent you an alert to contact GOP gubernatorial candidate Marc Molinaro, to state your opposition to Julie Killian as his running mate for Lt. Governor. Within two to three hours of posting the alert, Molinaro was on the phone to me and that's a credit to you. I have always expressed that the most important key to our success is you and yesterday we saw how true that is.

    During our phone conversation, I expressed to him our opposition to Julie Killian as his Lt. Governor. He acknowledged our concerns but assured me that he continues to support the 2nd Amendment and more specifically repeal of the SAFE Act. He also assured me that Killian is in full support of his agenda, including his positions on the 2nd Amendment, and his opposition to the SAFE Act. He also said Killian would soon be making a public statement affirming her support of Molinaro on those issues.

    That said, I would have preferred that Killian was replaced on the ticket and I said that to Molinaro, but unfortunately, we're not going to get that. He did though, assure me that gun owners will have a friend in the governor's mansion if he's elected. His history would support his reassurances, and of all the candidates out there he does present us the best chance to impact the SAFE Act.

    Finally, Molinaro’s call yesterday is an indication of how important Molinaro thinks gun owners will be in this election. He also knows you’re paying attention. Those are important points to remember as we move towards November.

    Thank you again for your support. Let’s build on our achievement and work toward success on November 6th.

  • 08/09/2018 4:00 PM | Anonymous
    June 07, 2018
    by Tim Andrews, President, S.C.O.P.E.

    Governor Cuomo announced his proposal to add teachers, school administrators, and other school personnel to the list of individuals who may petition the courts to issue extreme risk protection orders for individuals who they believe are likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others.

    On the surface, this may seem, to some, as reasonable; however, as is often the case the devil’s in the details. Do you remember a few years ago a child was suspended from school for eating a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun or the fifth-grade girl in Philadelphia who was suspended for having a piece of paper that was torn into the shape of a gun? Schools, teachers, and administrators are not always rational thinkers when it comes to these issues. Imagine a parent losing their firearms because their son or daughter brought a copy of the American Rifleman or Firing Lines to school. Or perhaps your child is overheard talking about a hunting trip or an outing at the gun range.

    And that brings us to the next issue with Governor Cuomo’s proposal. The subject or the respondent of the order would presumably be the student but then again what is be the point of an extreme risk protection order for a child under 18 years of age since they can’t legally own or possess firearms anyway? Does the parent or legal guardian then become the subject or respondent of the order? Again, your child commits one of those terrible offenses mentioned in my previous paragraph, and you’re awakened by a surprise visit from the sheriff’s department to confiscate your firearms.

    Yes, it will be a surprise visit, not only are your 2nd Amendment rights violated, your due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments will also be trampled. You see this bill if it becomes law will give the courts the right to take away your guns before you have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. Here’s a situation where you are not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted and your rights under the constitution are denied. Sounds more like Hitler’s Germany or the old Soviet Union than America. Finally, when the extreme risk protection order is issued a notice will be sent to the FBI and subsequently added to the NICS system. Question is, who’s reported to NICS? The child or parent? A child under the age of 18 can’t legally own or purchase a firearm. What’s the point of a child being added to the NICS system? More likely it’s the parent who will be added to NICS? Good luck purchasing your next firearm.

    This bill is more proof of what gun banners really want, they want a total ban and total confiscation. They want more than your neighbor’s AR 15, they want your Remington 870, your Remington 1100 and that Henry lever action .22. This legislation is one more backdoor way to attain their goal.

    Call or write Governor Cuomo and tell him you are adamantly opposed to his proposal to undermine your constitutional rights. You can reach the governor at, 518-474-8390, https://www.governor.ny.gov/ his mailing address is, State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224.

    Also call your assemblywoman, assemblyman, and senator. If you don’t know who they are use this link to find your representatives in Albany: http://nyassembly.gov/mem/ or https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator

  • 07/25/2018 3:08 PM | Anonymous

    By Don Smith

    The handgun license you obtained, oh those many years ago, with the recognition that it was valid for your lifetime has now been reduced to a FIVE [5] YEAR permit. NY State now requires “license holders to re-certify their status every five years”. That's right, you must now RENEW your pistol permit EVERY FIVE [5] YEARS or face revocation [permanent] of the license. 

    All thanks to Mr. Cuomo and his so-called “S.A.F.E”. Act. This "Act" modified several laws in this state. One of them is the NY PENAL LAW that was amended to RESTRICT Y OUR RIGHTS. How you say? Part (b) was added to Section 10 of the Penal Law. It converted your once life-long pistol permit into a FIVE [5] YEAR permit with the swipe of Cuomo's pen. 

    You are now required by law to provide the NY State Police with not only several pieces of your personal data but also an affirmation that you are not prohibited from possessing Y O U R O W N f i r e a r m s [HANDGUNS ONLY]. Better yet, the UNSAFE Act offers the opportunity to complete the form for RE-CERTIFICATION ONLINE at a State Police website. 

    Let’s see if I have this right: I “certify” myself as NOT being prohibited from owning a handgun in NY State. But why must I report my recertification of myself, by myself, to NY State? Oh, I get it now!! The State wants a database of all handguns! Isn’t this tantamount to a registration of all handguns? History teaches us that registration leads to one thing, confiscation! 

    Consider these statements: 

    • Former President Clinton: “Only the police should have handguns.” 

    • Illinois Rep Schakowsky: “...the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun...” 

    • Retired NY Rep Owens: “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.” [Does “acquisitions” remind you of the word “confiscation” used by Gov. Cuomo and others?] 

    • Nelson Shields, former Chair of The Brady Campaign: “Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handg u n s a n d a m m u n i - tion]”....”We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily--given the political realitiesvery modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” 

    • The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence [www.csgv.org]: “We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.”

     • American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]: “We urge passage of federal legislation...to prohibit...the private ownership and possession of handguns.” 

    • Michael Gardner, former President of NBC News: “There is no reason for anyone in this country...to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun…” 

    • Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General: “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” 

    Remember, the goal of the State is to have as many people re-certify electronically as possible. SO OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO HAVE THE FEWEST, OR NONE AT ALL, register online. We must ALL RE-CERTIFY on PAPER. Mail the form via CERTIFIED MAIL. This confirms it was both MAILED and RECEIVED. This allows you to comply with the law when you have to, but not before. 

    It is being suggested as an attractive proposition that we mail the form at the last possible moment… January 29 or 30, 2018. But we need to research this further as Cuomo likes to change the rules after the game has started. 

    Further research is also needed to determine if we are authorizing the State to access our HIPPA file. If so, then NYS has figured out a way to correct their violation of federal HIPPA law by having the citizen authorize the State’s invasion of privacy. 

    Recall that on September 20, 2016, representatives of the NY State Police spoke to the Fall Conference of the New York State County Clerk’s Association and made this statement: "The responsibility of the permit holder will be fulfilled when the recertification form is submitted to the State Police. Thus, if a problem arose where recertification was delayed, but submitted before the deadline, licensee is still legal." 

  • 07/25/2018 3:04 PM | Anonymous

    By William R Fox, Sr, Genesee County Chapter Chairman

    I often wonder just what ‘We the People’ means to so many that have died over hundreds of years for our freedoms. It bothers me that so many people stand back with a look like a deer in headlights as we are stripped of our rights. Do we, as free people, realize how many God given rights we have lost in the last 100 years. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves as they see what is happening in America. Especially for all they sacrificed. 

    To have liberties means to be morally and ethically responsible in the way we conduct ourselves in everyday life. Part of that responsibility is to stand up and be heard. It may mean we need to put ourselves in an uncomfortable position by calling out our elected officials, or standing on Main Street with a sign, or even going to Albany and marching on the Capital. Have you done any of these things? 

    Where have the tens of thousands of gun owners gone in NY State? We the people of good faith have a decision to make; where do we want to be. 

    We have the pistol registration process of the (un)SAFE Act starting this year. How about you? Are you going to register, are you one of those who say you will not? Are you one of those that will sell your pistols and turn in your pistol permit? 

    As I stated We the People have a decision to make. There are a lot of questions to be answered and a lot of what ifs. I ask everyone reading this to ask yourself; what have you done lately? Did you get out and vote to change the direction we are heading in? If you did, great. Do you feel that is enough? Why have we come to this? How or what can we do? With our newly elected President Trump we finally have a chance to make a difference because we have proven that we want to save our country from the corruption and the stripping of the constitution. 

    With that said I believe that it is time for We the People to stand up for what is right. 

    Take a look at your kids and your grand kids then say to yourself have you done all that you could do to protect their future.? We need to get involved and stop leaving it up to others to fight for your God given rights. We have to figure this out individually in our own minds and hearts and move forth. The key to this all is We the People need to do the ethical and moral thing, as our forefathers did, and fight for our rights and our future generations rights. 

  • 07/25/2018 2:49 PM | Anonymous

    By Richard Rossi, Delaware County SCOPE 

    First let me say the whole RE-CERTIFICATION process is 'vague and unclear' - which is exactly to be expected from our lawmakers and Governor in Albany. We are now into another phase of the ill conceived, illegal SAFE Act. 

    First and foremost, I am 100% against any criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, drug dealers/ users, gang members, mentally unstable individuals or illegal's having access to ANY weapons what-soever; however, this does not give anyone (President, Congress, Governor, Mayor, any elected official) the right to infringe on any individual’s Constitutional Rights - PERIOD. We have laws in this country which must be obeyed or we no longer exist as a nation. These officials took an oath to preserve and protect our Constitution/Bill of Rights. 

    At first glance why do we need a RE-CERTIFICATION process at all? What is its purpose, and is there a 'real' need for this? Is Governor Cuomo saying that our County Sheriffs and Judges are NOT doing their jobs? Is he saying that they are lax in enforcing the laws and revoking any and all licenses of those who become convicted felons? 

    Unfortunately, these questions need to be answered by our Governor; however, I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer. Remember, our Governor BELIEVES he is the supreme ruler of NYS. He is not accountable to 'We The People' - the peasants. And Gods know, we citizens in Upstate are not even worth thinking about. 

    Based on my analysis of the SAFE Act and recertification initiative, the recertification process is a pure waste of tax payers’ money. It is NOT going to catch any hard-core criminals. Heck, they don't even register their weapons in the first place. They probably could not get past a background check. So what is it? 

    It is being done to get weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens based on technicalities, failure to comprehend the law fully, and glitches in our judicial system and just plain and simple 'errors'; the wrong individual being 'tagged'. 

    Just remember all the individuals that were incorrectly added to the 'NO FLY LIST' and the 'TERRORIST WATCH' list. 

    You say, ‘I have a clean record' therefore I should have NO problem getting re-certified. I have nothing to hide getting re-certified. Really, think about the mental health provisions in the SAFE Act law. Your HIPPA Rights are gone. You are at the mercy of ANY health care professional. 

    Think about your last visit to your doctor. Does he/she know you are a gun owner? Has he/she asked you any questions about your firearms? Did he ask how you store your firearms? Forget the doctor; did you mention something to the nurse or receptionist? Did they ask if you are DEPRESSED or have any ANXIETY ISSUES OR CONCERNS? Did you mention that you are having problems with your boss, children, wife, co-workers, family members or friends or neighbors? Did you say you wanted something to sleep because of these conditions? Did you ask about a marriage counselor for your 'shaky' marriage or ask for a name of counselor to address your children's behavior problems? Did you make a 'stupid' statement while talking to them about wanting someone dead? At times, under stress we say stupid things that we would never follow through on - right? 

    Surprise, you may have been profiled as someone who might be or has the potential of being a seriously violent individual that should NOT have possession of firearms either now or years in the future. 

    Your name will be sent to the State database WITHOUT you having any knowledge. You will not be given any 'due-process' - as required, OR the right to defend yourself against your accuser. BINGO, your license has been REVOKED. 

    Names have been going to this data base for a couple of years now. Now you understand why the recertification was delayed until 2017? 

    It even gets more scarier. They are looking to revoke licenses of Senior Citizens who need assistance with their daily finances and have made a family member 'legally' responsible for their affairs. They are looking to revoke licenses of our returning service men and women, claiming they may be unstable because of the conflicts they saw and were involved in. 

    We are on a slippery slope if we let this continue without outrage - our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as American's will be gone just because we are law-abiding gun owners. This is clearly discrimination against a class of citizens. You have been assumed GUILTY and you had no opportunity to defend yourself - let alone know you have been accused. 

    Now that we have a true President in the White House, it is time to speak out and say we will not take it anymore. However, don't for one second think the 'war' is over. We have just achieved one victory in the battle to FREEDOM. 

    We have achieved one victory - now, on to Albany. Think about 2018, start now - Cuomo must be defeated. It can be achieved, IF we put the effort into it each and every day. Get involved, keep contacting your NYS Assemblymen and Senators - let them know you are outraged with "business as usual in Albany". We The People will not have our Rights/Freedoms infringed any longer. 

    This is NOT a battle for gun owners ONLY, it is a battle for ALL true American Citizens. As our Second Amendment goes, the rest will surely follow. I fully respect your right not to have a firearm - I only ask you to respect my right to have one. 

    No one would say “I did not speak-out because it did not affect me”. When it does affect you, will there be anyone left to speak out? This is a fight that ALL American's must battle. 

  • 07/25/2018 2:39 PM | Anonymous

    By Tom Reynolds

    In November, the voters of New York will be asked a question that they are asked every twenty years; do the people of New York want a Constitutional convention held for the purpose of amending the New York Constitution. This is a complex decision and should not be taken lightly. It could have a significant impact on 2nd Amendment rights in New York as well as multiple other issues, since the convention is not limited as to what it can address: if they want to address gun rights, they can; if they want to address any other issue, they can; the field is wide open since the convention determines its own rules. In other words, there could be a runaway convention. On the other hand, this may be an opportunity for Bill of Rights advocates. 

    First, understand that the NY Constitution is much longer and has more specific detail than the US Constitution. New York cannot lessen any rights guaranteed by the US Constitution but this does not stop the state from trying to do that in clever ways. The state can expand upon rights, too. Any New York amendments can be challenged as unconstitutional under the US Constitution but because they are a part of the NY Constitution, they cannot be challenged under NY law as unconstitutional. What can occur under NY law is that two parts of the NY Constitution can disagree, which gets ugly. 

    There are four steps to this process: step 1 -in November 2017 the voters decide if they want a constitutional convention held; step 2 - if approved, in November 2018 the voters elect delegates to the convention; step 3 -in April 2019, the convention is held; step 4 - in November 2019 (probably) the voters in a statewide election vote on accepting or rejecting any proposed amendments that came out of the convention. 

    Each NY Senate district is entitled to 3 convention delegates elected by the voters in each district, (63 districts times 3 delegates each equals 189 delegates). Plus, there will be 15 at large delegates chosen by a statewide vote for a total of 204 total delegates. That is a lot of delegates! And you can be sure there will be some extremists and whackos. Remember, political jokes sometimes get elected! Those are the hard facts about it. After that it gets complicated. Really complicated! 

    There are 63 NY Senate districts and Republicans control 31, the Democrats control 31 and 1 Brooklyn Senator ran as both a Republican and Democrat but he sits with the Republicans, which gives the Republicans a 1 vote majority. If this template holds true, the 189 delegates from districts might be fairly evenly split. The 15 At-Large delegates are the problem. New York State is a Democratic controlled state because NY City is overwhelmingly Democratic even though Upstate voter registrations are close between Republicans and Democrats. Since 2nd Amendment proponents tend to be Republicans, it will be difficult – but not impossible - to get pro-gun Republicans elected to the 15 statewide offices as well as getting any pro-gun amendments approved in the statewide election that is step 4. Books could be written on the various possibilities under this, so I will not expand on it here. 

    It is reasonable to say that the grassroots pro 2nd Amendment people (us) are not happy with the political establishment in New York. It continues to disappoint us. Why is this important for the Constitutional Convention? Because the political establishment will be positioned to nominate convention delegates that reflect the establishment’s interests and not our interests. If we are to have a Constitutional Convention, we must be prepared to work to get 2A delegates on the ballot and then elect them. This includes working with other 2A organizations and other Constitutional Rights preservation organizations. We cannot afford political Conscientious Objectors when it comes to getting actively involved in defending 2A.It will take a strong, united effort to get something positive done. A winning strategy will be to sweep the three delegates in Republican districts and win at least one delegate in Democratic districts as a way to offset the probable losses in statewide delegates. 

    With all these difficulties, why bother with a Convention? First, the current political establishment in NY has not shown the backbone to effectively work on repealing the Safe Act and safeguarding our rights. A convention could be one way of bypassing them. 

    Second, the NY Senate has been much less effective than we like but it has stopped much of the anti-gun craziness that comes out of NY City. If we lose the majority - and as noted above it hangs by the proverbial thread -the Safe Act will endure and there will be “Sons of the Safe Act.” We could lose the majority in the normal course of events, but Cuomo is actively working to move Senate seats out of Upstate and down to NY City. If Upstate loses jobs it loses population and, therefore, after the 2020 census, Upstate will lose Senate seats and Cuomo, DeBlazio and the NY City crazies will reign, unimpeded. Unless something happens to change NY State’s economic policies (Cuomo’s policies) it will happen. A Constitutional Convention may be our last hope. 

    One proponent of the NY Constitutional Convention has been the “Divide NY Group”. They recognize that breaking NY into two federally recognized states, (Upstate and the NY City area), is probably not politically possible. What they pro- pose is breaking the state into two regions where each has its own laws; hence, no Safe Act in Upstate. The governor would become relatively symbolic, like the Queen of England. The exact form would be decided in the Constitutional Convention so it could vary but that is the general idea. While the idea is appealing, remember all the cautions in my previous paragraphs. If the political elite and NY City get control of the convention, they could make things even worse. 

    While this article has dwelt on the NY Constitutional convention, there is another approach that is worth mentioning, but it is also difficult. Most legislators – but not allare in relatively safe districts. Getting the majority party’s nomination is akin to election. The incumbent establishment in a safe district hate the word “Primary”. It’s difficult to primary an incumbent since the establishment tends to unite behind that incumbent. But to get legislators with pro-2nd Amendment backbones in office, this is another approach. 

    If we are to get pro-gun delegates elected to a Constitutional Convention, it will take a grassroots effort in the districts. If we are to primary incumbents, it will also take a grassroots effort in the districts. Do you understand that this is one reason why SCOPE is putting its efforts into chapters and committees instead of the state organization? I, personally, am undecided on how I will vote on a Constitutional Convention but I wanted to share some issues with you to start a conversation within SCOPE while we have some time. As I hope you now realize, this could be a very significant decision for protecting the 2nd Amendment gun rights. 

  • 07/25/2018 2:30 PM | Anonymous

    By Don Smith and Tom Reynolds 

    Over the course of fourteen years, from 1775 to 1789, the US had four forms of government: a king, the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation and, finally, our Constitution. Each step was an attempt to improve on the previous one. It was a pendulum-like process but it eventually worked. 

    On a lesser scale, SCOPE has been undergoing the same process. After decades of being a relatively small organization primarily in western NY, it suddenly became a genuinely statewide organization after passage of the SAFE Act in 2013. That growth led to administrative and organizational problems. New leadership was elected to deal with those problems while simultaneously charting a new long term direction that puts more grassroots emphasis on the chapters and committees. 

    This new emphasis on grassroots’ actions is important because we do our best to work at that level with our locally elected officials. It is important for constituents to be in contact with their legislators on multiple occasions, especially during NY’s legislative session from January to June. SCOPE chapters in the legislator’s home district must open lines of communication which will forge positive and valuable on-going relationships between legislators and SCOPE members. Working through SCOPE will allow common people at the local level to affect the decisions of their representatives. This is a fundamental role for any “grassroots” organization. 

    Our belief is that putting more emphasis on the chapters and committees will help to invigorate the membership to be more involved, raise SCOPE’s profile, increase membership and make SCOPE more effective. We are seeing signs that this is happening. Last year, we only had six candidates for At Large positions on SCOPE’s board and all were previously involved at the state level. This year we have twelve candidates and half are NOT now involved at the state level. Last year we had one person doing the review of proposed legislation while this year we have three. But there are many other non -board jobs that need doing and we need volunteers from the membership. 

    Growth and development brings new challenges to be answered. When SCOPE moved from being a small regional to a large statewide organization, it did not adapt its policies and procedures for the changing organizational needs. Officers have a duty to see that members’ dues are used ethically, efficiently and effectively. By -laws and regulations must be followed and not ignored. Officers must be willing to share information openly with the board and the membership; knowledge may be power but that power cannot be hoarded by a few. 

    These simple directives were not followed over the past few years and problems occurred and administrations changed. We inherited last year’s records that were either incomplete or in complete disarray, which puts an audit of last year in question. However, we are committed to having the first financial audit in SCOPE’s history by ensuring that the current year’s records will allow an audit. Members will know how their dues are being spent. We are also catching up on required government reporting that was not done in the past and is stressing both chapter and state officers. But, it must be done and once completed it will ease future chapter operations. We now have a very active Finance Committee that is putting greater emphasis on protecting SCOPE’s assets and ensuring that these issues never again arise. 

    The 2A movement has been hampered by the lack of cooperation between organizations. Working together isn’t always  easy but having all the gun owners in NY motivated, locally involved and moving in the same direction will produce a force that cannot be ignored. This requires organizations to rise above old issues and recognize that they exist to defend our Constitutional Rights and that goal must neutralize differences that arise. Towards that end, one of the first efforts mutually made was to end the problems between SCOPE and NYS Rifle and Pistol Association and begin working along parallel paths. To that end, we have met success. Both SCOPE and NYSRPA have set aside past differences for the greater good of the 2nd Amendment. SCOPE looks forward to forging new relationships, even if it means overlooking past problems between organizations and individuals in order to defend the 2nd Amendment. 

    SCOPE is also concerned with the protection of fundamental human rights such as due process, freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of personal property. Our Articles of Incorporation state that SCOPE is, “…dedicated to the preservation of the United State of America and the Constitution……and particularly Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.” Those opposing the 2nd Amendment are also going after other rights. We must begin to work with our natural allies in the name of protecting all Constitutional Rights. You don’t have to own a gun to be concerned about the erosion of your rights. We must work with “Rights” organizations for a return to what the Constitution originally said and not the one Sotomayer and others wish it had said. 

    Ronald Reagan defined perfectly that our short term decisions should all still be moving us in our long term direction. No organization operates in a vacuum and current political forces influence our short-term decisions but we must never lose sight of our goals. Extreme anti 2nd Amendment forces like Cuomo, Obama and the mainstream media have dominated the past few years but we may now have an ally in the White House. We must capture this moment by promoting enthusiasm, raising expectations and supporting activism. 

    Because of the negative political climate we endured, the primary goal of 2A defense organizations has been to counter attacks on the rights of firearms owners. SCOPE was a part of successfully lobbying for the REJECTION of bills sometimes labeled "SAFE Act 2". Some examples: Safe Storage, Microstamping, Ban of 50 Caliber firearms [including 12 gauge shotguns], Mandatory insurance coverage of $250,000 for gun owners, 18 years old to own a gun, State issued pistol permits, Registration of ALL firearms with $15 fee/gun and annual renewal with $10 fee/gun. 

    While we won these battles, the enemies will return and the “War On Guns” continues. Although we have not been able to obtain a repeal of the SAFE ACT itself, we continue to remain on the offensive. 

    All of us in SCOPE need to be laser focused on “what we do", “how we do it” and “what it costs in time and money” between now and the November 2018 Gubernatorial Election. There are serious issues with which your chapter and state leadership must be engaged. Distractions should not be tolerated. “Cuomo’s Gotta Go” as well as the SAFE Act.  

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 Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software