Log in


Complete list of Wayne County SCOPE's Articles

Click on an article header below to see the entire article.

  • 12/29/2021 11:54 PM | Anonymous

    by Alan Korwin, Author

    Gun Laws of America
    January 27, 2010

    Will "Freedom To Carry" replace "Right To Carry"?
    It's moving that way in Texas and elsewhere.

    With state legislative sessions starting nationwide, the right to bear arms is front and center in people's minds and some state legislatures. Arizona has quickly moved a Constitutional Carry bill through both House and Senate committees, with broad support from the public, state organizations and the NRA. We'll know if it is enacted probably by April. 

    The so-called "right-to-carry permit" requires government interference, paperwork, applications, approvals, taxes called "fees," mandatory classes, written tests, shooting tests, plastic-coated permission slips, fingerprinting, photographs, entries into criminal databases and expiration dates for your "rights." That has definitely moved the right to bear arms significantly ahead. Is it time to go further and reach "Freedom To Carry"?

    So-called "right to carry," even with all its baggage, has served us well, insofar as it has destroyed the myth that if good people have guns they'll run around indiscriminately killing each other. It quenched the paranoia that possession of a gun turns you into a homicidal maniac. It put to death the lie that an armed public will look like Dodge City. It ended the nonsense that a concealed weapon will entice you to shoot fellow motorists at stop lights. It wiped out the silliness that innocent armed people in restaurants will shoot slow waiters. Arizona enacted so-called guns in bars (actually, discreetly carried arms in liquor-licensed restaurants with no drinking allowed) in 2009, and all the waiters are still breathing. Right-to-carry showed up the anti-rights gun haters and their compliant media co-conspirators as a pack of lying, deceitful, terrified, irrational, egregious, elitist, hoplophobic enemies of civil rights. 

    Under Freedom To Carry, sometimes called Vermont carry or Alaska-style carry, basically, the government stays out of your face as you exercise your fundamental human and civil right to own and carry property. Arms, by the way, are the only enumerated objects in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed the right to possess. 

    Alaska enacted Freedom To Carry in 2003 and alls well. Texas enacted Freedom To Carry "light" in 2007 as the Motorist Protection Act: there is no government interference with discreetly having a gun anywhere in your premises or your vehicle (including any sort of motor home), and from your premises to your vehicle, an excellent start (you still need a license while out and about on foot, so they're taking it one step at a time, so to speak). Having a firearm, if you're doing nothing wrong, is not a crime. And should not be a crime. What a concept. A woman should be able to put a handgun in her handbag and go about her day without fear of arrest. Montana enacted Freedom To Carry in 1991 for 99.4% of the state (outside city limits). 

    Under the infringement of so-called "reciprocity" schemes (an odious feature of "right-to-carry" plans), your human and civil rights as an American have been reduced to a list of government-approved states for licensees only, when you leave your home state. The 98% of the public that refuses to jump through the hoops, be taxed, get on the criminal database and get "rights" papers is left out in the cold when they travel under the current "reciprocity" model. Enormous police effort that could be going directly toward reducing crime is instead being diverted into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent.

    The biggest argument against government-free Constitutional Carry is that it does away with the required training for a carry license. Training is good, we all agree. But are too many trainers now lined up at this government-made trough to feed? Are they afraid they won't be able to make money like regular entrepreneurs, if government doesn't force people to attend their classes? Do they fit the classic definition of a cartel, a business created and protected by government mandates, with the threat of arrest for anyone who operates outside the constraints? 

    There is also a fear that if people bear arms without the enforced classes, the dumb idiots will kill people out of stupidity -- sort of like the argument the anti-rights people make about guns in general. That's false of course, since less than 2% of the public gets a license and hence the required class -- but half the public has guns. The 50% of the people who have guns without the king's permission slips seem to get along just fine without being forced to take a class under penalty of arrest.

    Here however is the silver lining of Constitutional Carry. With your rights restored, and training provided on a voluntary basis, trainers will be free to offer classes to the general public the way General Mills sells cereal. Everyone should have some. You want some of this? You can expect a burst of advertising and promotion for gun-safety and marksmanship classes once everyone is freed from government constraints. Family classes, discount days, coupons, two-fers, novice-to-advanced programs -- all the exposure you'd expect for any consumer product will start to emerge, as competition (not mandates) drive the market.

    The departure of government from the firearms-training market leaves a vacuum that can and should be filled by ambitious entrepreneurs who see the potential. When people's rights are restored, their undertsanding of the need for competent instruction will bloom, and savvy marketers will help them along. 

    Instead of focusing on a tiny fraction of the public who bows for the permission slip, and leaving everyone else in darkness, we can finally move to school-based education. No student should be able to graduate without a healthy understanding of firearms, their social utility, and a demonstrated ability to safely discharge a firearm at a target. Use the Arizona high-school marksmanship bill as a basis, it's a sizzler:

    It is so totally American, and replacing the current state of TV-fueled gun ignorance with enlightenment and understanding, accidents will drop, safety will improve, national readiness will skyrocket, and the fear that there won't be enough training opportunities will fall apart as the stale BS it is.

    If you do one thing this season, push for Constitutional Carry in your state. Draft a bill. Introduce a bill. Use our approach in Arizona and seek to simply repeal the unconstitutional obnoxious offensive ban against your civil rights. You're an American. You can do this.

    Call -- don't write -- your local gun-rights chapter, even if you're not a member, you fool. Tell them you would support Freedom To Carry in your state. Tell them you would join (or donate) if they draft a Constitutional Carry law. Get this ball rolling.

  • 12/18/2021 2:20 AM | Anonymous

    Members of the Firearm Industry Launch Battle to Have New York Statute Declared Unconstitutional.

    NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) and a group of fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed a lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court today challenging as unconstitutional a New York law designed to blame the industry for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased.

    Specifically, New York’s “public nuisance” law would subject members of the firearm industry to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state. Today’s lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

    New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress. This law interferes with the sovereignty of other states to make policy choices about how firearms should be sold in their state, subject only to the Second Amendment and federal law.

    The challenged law permits lawsuits by victims of criminal acts and citizens claiming they have been harmed by an alleged public nuisance in New York. It also allows lawsuits by the State and any local government, like the City of New York. Both New York State and the City of New York were part of a wave of similar lawsuits filed over twenty years ago that led to Congress passing the bipartisan PLCAA in 2005.

    The PLCAA codified a bedrock legal principle. Manufacturers and retailers are not responsible for the subsequent criminal misuse or illegal possession of their lawfully sold, non-defective products by remote third parties - criminals - over whom they have no control. Firearm industry members are not legally responsible for illegal shootings any more than a cookware manufacturer is responsible if a criminal misuses a sharp kitchen knife to stab someone.

    “This law is not about making our communities safer but rather, as former Governor Andrew Cuomo once proclaimed, to impose on the firearm industry a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ Today’s lawsuit will end this unconstitutional attack on the businesses, large and small, vital to Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “Opening up members of the firearm industry to a torrent of baseless civil lawsuits is – as it was in the past – an effort to impose radical gun control policies by litigating the forceful bankruptcy of companies. New York’s baseless law ignores the fact that members of the firearm industry work cooperatively with federal, state, and local authorities for Real Solutions® to help address crimes involving guns.”

    Legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Turley have long defended the merits of the PLCAA pointing out that laws like the one recently passed in New York are “unsound attempts” to distort principles of liability. New York’s law allows the very type of novel tort law actions, including those by New York State and City of New York, struck down by courts two decades ago.

    NSSF looks forward to working with the individual plaintiffs and other members of the firearm industry to fight this blatantly unconstitutional New York law and in doing so, uphold the foundations of tort law, fight government overreach, and protect the firearm businesses that lawfully operate and employ over 340,000 of Americans.

    For more information on the PLCAA, see NSSF’s Fact Sheet.

  • 12/16/2021 12:26 AM | Anonymous

    New York Democrat Attorney General Letitia James on Tuesday praised California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent move to allow residents to sue gunmakers, saying New York should follow his lead.

    James said: “We need to follow his lead. And the reason why that is, is because gun manufacturers and gun distributors in this country are immunized. No liability whatsoever. They are the only industry that is protected in this country, and given the carnage, and given the fact that this is the anniversary of Sandy Hook, I am sick and tired of prayers and individuals whose hearts go out to all of those who have lost their lives,” she said. “We can do something about it.”

    Sound familiar? It is eerily similar to the “red flag” legislation called for by President Biden and others nationwide. Actually New York passed its own such bill in 2019. It allows NY citizens to contact authorities and declare an acquaintance incapable of owning or possessing firearms.

    Thus began new assault on the rights of gun owners in the face of the ever progressive agenda of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s past regime making it more than well known that gun owners in New York State are not only unwanted, but they are on a list of targets and as he has said in the past if people don’t like his rules, then they are free to leave. 

    Fortunately Mr. Cuomo departed yet left us to still face a majority of like-minded legislators who are willing to continue his legacy. A major goal is for us to ‘win back’ the state senate by electing Republican candidates on whose vote we can depend. Recall that one of the most recent attempts (in 2020) was to pass a bill requiring that each time a gun owner wants to buy a gun, no matter what, they would have to seek out an approved mental health professional to have an evaluation performed. This bill did not reach a full legislative vote but it continues to have many legislative supporters. The question should be when do ALL elected officials get their mental health evaluation ? 

    Lawmakers in the Empire State last year approved what they call the toughest ban on so-called “Ghost Guns” in the country. The measure aims to create tough new statewide laws on firearms without serial numbers such as those commonly built by hobbyists in the comfort of their own home. It would also make the simple act of fitting together the component parts of a firearm a crime for anyone who is not a licensed gunsmith. The bill, like others, has been floating around Albany for almost a decade in one form or another but was consistently foiled while Republicans held narrow control of the senate. 

    These bills may seem harmless to many gun owners. They feel no pressure if it does not appear to affect them personally. The question to ask is when does such encroachment on our personal liberties stop? Certainly a requirement for a mental health evaluation should be the last straw for all of us. Yet it’s failure to become law this past year will lull many to sleep again. 


  • 11/16/2021 11:50 PM | Anonymous

    We have now heard the oral arguments in the case challenging New York’s draconian and subjective “may issue” carry laws, and while we’ve heard from dozens of attorneys on both sides of the argument, we haven’t heard much at all from the individual gun owners who are hoping to see the state’s carry regime declared unconstitutional. Until now, anyway.

    Robert Nash, who’s one of two gun owners suing the state, has never before spoken to the press about his involvement in the case, but in an exclusive interview with Bearing Arms, the gun owner lays out the byzantine process of applying for a license and explains why he refused to accept a judge’s decision to deny him an unrestricted carry license and chose instead to take his case to court.

    Nash says that in Rensselaer County, where he lives, the process of applying for a concealed carry license goes something like this: first you gather together all of your necessary paperwork, including proof of training and four character references from individuals who will testify to your suitability to carry a gun. Then you hand over all of your documentary evidence along with several hundred dollars and you wait. Other New York State counties follow a similar procedure.

    For Nash, it took about five months before he found out he’d been granted a “restricted” license, which allows him to take his pistol with him only to hunt or target shoot. Carrying for self-defense, however, is still prohibited with a restricted license, and if you’re caught carrying without a permit it’s a felony charge and a mandatory prison term upon conviction. So after a few months with his restricted license, Nash applied to have those restrictions removed.

    As Nash explains, under New York’s law county officials have broad discretion and leeway in terms of granting or denying licenses. In Rensselaer County, there are multiple judges assigned to decide the outcome of permit applications, and each of them may have very different views on the right to carry. According to Nash, there are several judges in the county who do issue unrestricted permits based on a general concern over personal safety, but there are also judges who rarely if ever find that an applicant has shown “good cause” or a “justifiable need” to carry a gun in self-defense. Guess who Nash ended up with?

    “I submitted a letter to him [the judge assigned to Nash’s application] asking him to remove my restrictions based on local crime in the area,” Nash tells Bearing Arms. “There was a string of robberies which you’ll see in the case, and it was the robberies and just for self-defense that were the reasons I wanted those restrictions removed. And he said ‘no.’ Other judges in the county, I could have submitted the same letter and they would have said ‘yes” in a minute. Even for lesser reasons. I’ve had other people that I know just say they want to protect their wife and kids and they get approved. Same county. Different judge.”

    This is a perfect example of the subjective nature of New York’s carry permitting laws. Not only do applicants have to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a firearm in self-defense, it’s up to the issuing authorities to decide what that justifiable need looks like. You may be lucky enough to get a judge or a county sheriff who believes that the right to bear arms is indeed a constitutional right and approves all permits from those legal gun owners who meet the training qualifications and submits their proper paperwork, or you could end up getting a judge who doesn’t believe that anyone should be walking around with a lawfully carried gun on their person. Your ability to exercise your Second Amendment rights aren’t based on the Constitution in New York, but on the whims of those in a position of authority.

    Nash’s denial didn’t sit well with him, and so a few months after his application had been rejected, he reached out to Tom King, the head of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association to let him know what had happened.

    He says ‘I know all about this, you’re not the only one, but I don’t know if we have a case yet. Let me talk to someone at the NRA.’ And he did, and he got back to me right away. And he said, ‘Look, I think we have a case. Here’s the roadmap they want to go with, but are you willing to stick your neck out over this? This is going to be a high-profile, your name’s going to be everywhere kind of thing.’ And without hesitation I said yes.”

    So here we are several years later, with Nash, co-plaintiff Brandon Koch, and the New York State Rifle Association squaring off with the state of New York in the Supreme Court (the National Rifle Association is financially supporting the challenge, but is not a named party in the lawsuit). Nash says he’s not expecting the Supreme Court to overturn every carry licensing law in existence, but he is hoping that a majority of justices strike down the subjective “may issue” laws on the books in New York and a handful of other states.

    “I just want to get New York’s law fixed. That was my goal from Day One. I don’t think that ‘proper cause’ should be in there at all, and I hope that the justices, when they’re reading New York State’s law and comparing it to the Second Amendment, I hope that they deem that this proper cause requirement violates the Second Amendment.”

    Nash is far from alone in his wishes. There are tens of millions of Americans hoping the Court does the same, me included. I appreciate Robert Nash standing up for his own Second Amendment rights and the rights of every other law-abiding citizen, and I’m looking forward to checking in with him again in just a few weeks after the oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen take place.

  • 11/01/2021 6:20 PM | Anonymous

    Oklahoma is the only state that neither Obama nor Biden won even one county in their elections. While everyone is focusing on Arizona's, Georgia, and Texas' new laws, look what Oklahoma has been doing! 


    Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. 


    Guess what? Oklahoma did it anyway. Recently Oklahoma passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102. Guess what? Oklahoma did it anyway. Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR1003. 


    The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals. 


    The Liberals didn't like it -- But.... Guess what? Oklahoma did it anyway. Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers' license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple. By the way, the Liberals don't like any of this either. Guess what? Oklahoma is doing it anyway. Guess what? The people I'm sending this to, will send it on. Well, at least the ones who love and believe in freedom will!  


    Hooray Oklahoma! A True Example for the rest of the United states!!!!



    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”     

     — Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

  • 09/05/2021 10:53 PM | Anonymous

    by Chris Eger of

    The new CDC director says it is "pedal to the metal" time when it comes to addressing guns as a "serious public health threat."

    A political appointment of the Biden-Harris Administration – CDC directors are not confirmed by the U.S. Senate – Dr. Rochelle Walensky took the helm of the national public health agency in January. Now, in a recent interview with CNN, she went record as characterizing gun crime and accidents as an epidemic that should be tackled with the agency's help. 

    "Something has to be done about this," said Walensky. "Now is the time – it's pedal to the metal time."

    Part of the pedal is allocating over $10 million in taxpayer dollars for a variety of missions including $2.2 million for tracking nonfatal gunshot wounds in 10 states over the next three years and another $7.8 million in grants spread across 16 research awards to study firearm-related injuries and crime. 

    "I swore to the President and to this country that I would protect your health. This is clearly one of those moments, one of those issues that is harming America's health," Walensky said.

    Only eight months on the job, Walensky's CDC has already attempted to reach far past its traditional public health mandate by instituting a 60-day extension of a federal COVID-related ban on landlords evicting their tenants. That extension was quickly struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional, with the high court pointing out that only Congress had the authority to extend the ban. 

    The CDC falls directly under the Department of Health and Human Services, a cabinet-level executive branch department headed by Xavier Becerra. While Becerra lacks any previous health care experience and was only confirmed by the Senate to his current position on a narrow 50-49 vote, he was the former attorney general of California and a long-term Democrat in Congress who championed gun control to include bans on "assault weapons." While the state's "top cop," he repeatedly ramped up regulation on guns, going so far as suing the ATF to force federal regulators to lower the boom on so-called "80-percent" lowers and kits. 

    The move from the CDC to become a player in gun politics comes as the Biden-Harris administration has promised to take a "whole-of-government approach” to a muscular domestic gun control policy. Public integrity groups are already pushing for full disclosure of a State Department ban on the import of guns and ammunition from Russia, a move ostensibly tied to sanctions over the poisoning of an anti-Putin advocate in 2020. At the same time, the Justice Department is currently weighing two far-reaching new rules on the way firearm frames and receivers are defined as well as the future legality of millions of pistol stabilizing braces. 

  • 08/15/2021 2:05 AM | Anonymous

    Friday, August 13th, 2021 

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is taking Joe Biden to task with a new 60-second TV message on several cable networks, and they’ve got the best help of all, the president’s own words of admission that he wants to ban 9mm handguns.

    The new message includes a film clip of Biden saying he wants to ban 9mm pistols.

    “Neither Joe Biden nor his White House handlers can sugar coat the president’s acknowledgement during a CNN Townhall program that he intends to ban some of the most popular pistols in the country,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This was no Biden gaffe, for which he is famous. It was an admission, whether unintentional or completely candid, that his hope is to ban 9mm handguns owned and used by tens of millions of Americans, including thousands of police officers.”

    Biden was responding to a question about gun control when he told his audience, “Whether it is a 9mm pistol, or a rifle, it is ridiculous. I am continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”

    “Biden cannot walk that one back no matter how hard he tries,” Gottlieb said, “and we’re going to keep reminding America about what he said. This is not going to be swept under the rug as just another one of Joe Biden’s famous slips of the tongue.”

    CCRKBA’s 60-second message will be broadcast on the following networks: AMC, FX, the Comedy Network, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, the Investigation Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, CNBC, the Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel. 

    Viewers are asked to text “SAVE 2A” to 474747, and join the fight to save a right.

    “When Joe Biden ran for the presidency,” Gottlieb recalled, “his gun control plan was already extreme, but now he’s exposed himself as a handgun prohibitionist. We’re going to energize every American gun owner possible to stop Biden’s radical agenda.”

  • 08/06/2021 11:39 PM | Anonymous

    Biden ATF Nominee Appeared on Chinese State TV to Discuss Sandy Hook Shooting

    President Biden’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms appeared on Chinese state television in 2012 to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

    Chipman appeared on China Global Television Network in December 2012 to discuss the Newtown, Ct., massacre in which 28 people were killed.

    Note that Chipman’s interview furthered a propaganda strategy to distract from a stabbing attack that claimed the lives of 23 children in China’s Heinan Province the same day. Chinese media gave scant attention to the stabbing and instead focused on the Sandy Hook shooting, Reuters reported at the time.

    Chipman’s interview on the Sandy Hook shooting is available on YouTube. The Trump administration required CGTN to register as a foreign agent in 2019, along with a host of other Chinese state media outlets.

    Chipman’s disclosure of media appearances to the Senate includes a disclaimersaying there may be other appearances that he does not remember.

    “I have done my best to identify all interviews given, including through a review of my personal files, and searches of publicly available electronic databases,” the disclaimer states. “Despite my searches, there may be other materials that I have been unable to identify, find, or remember.”

    It is not clear when the Senate will vote to confirm Chipman as director of the ATF. Conservatives have criticized Chipman’s support for gun control measures, and with moderate Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) opposing his confirmation, Chipman would likely be approved as ATF director along party lines.

    “In recent years, Mr. Chipman has been an outspoken critic of the firearms industry and has made statements that demean law-abiding gun owners,” Collins said in June. “Although he has the right to express his views, I believe this history makes him an unusually divisive pick for this important position.”

  • 06/21/2021 9:56 AM | Anonymous

    Wayne County S.C.O.P.E.  We encourage all members to VOTE on PRIMARY DAY - TUESDAY 6.22.21

    Ratings of Wayne County Sheriff Candidates running in the Republican primary on Tuesday, June 22, 2021, have been completed. The ratings are:

    Candidate Milby: A+           Candidate MacNeal: A

    The Wayne County SCOPE Committee used the following as a rating basis:

    Candidate shows strong evidence of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and:

    ⦁ Strongly supports the Second Amendment.

    ⦁ Strongly supports the right to due process.

    ⦁ Strongly supports the right to legally use firearms for self defense.

    ⦁ Strongly agrees that no government entity has the right to infringe on possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. 

    ⦁ Strongly supports the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    Candidate shows strong evidence of opposition to gun control efforts such as:

    ⦁ The NY SAFE Act.

    ⦁ Extreme Risk Protection Orders ("Red Flag" laws).

    ⦁ Need for gun owners to purchase gun-owner or liability insurance. 

    ⦁ Banning of semi-automatic firearms.

    ⦁ Micro-stamping capability of semi-automatic firearms.

    ⦁ Background checks to purchase ammunition.

    ⦁ Registration of long guns.

    ⦁ Mandatory storage of firearms within one's own home.

  • 06/06/2021 8:36 AM | Anonymous

    The debate between the Wayne County candidates for sheriff has been removed from News 8, but can be viewed on YouTube at the link below:        Primary election day is June 22nd.

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