Surgeon General Fronts for Biden/Harris

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said, “Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.” Both President Biden and Vice President Harris continue to claim that gunshots are the leading cause of death of “children.” Murthy christened the situation as a “public health crisis,” opening the door to use a crisis to impose even more gun control through executive actions.  

Are you a bit skeptical of claims by Biden and Harris’ experts? You should be.  Remember Fauci and Covid?

In Murthy’s 39-page report, the entire deterrent emphasis is on the gun-control laws already pushed by Biden/Harris: assault-weapons ban; mandatory gunlock laws; and background checks on the private transfer of guns.  Not once are the effects of soft-on-crime-prosecutors, defund the police, arrest and conviction rates, bail reform and emptying prisons mentioned by Murthy. Biden / Harris’ experts won’t consider both costs and benefits of firearms.  Murthy’s approach will be as counterproductive as many of the experts’ Covid recommendations.  

As John Lott puts it, it’s nonsense that “these problems wouldn’t exist if guns weren’t there.”  According to Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “After every gun ban, murder rates have gone up.  One would think that just once, out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or remained the same after a ban. But whenever crime data are available from both before and after a ban, we can see that murder rates have risen (often by huge amounts).”

Remember those issues mentioned above that Murthy did not mention?  The United Kingdom banned handguns in 1997 and over the next eight years its homicide rate rose by 50 percent.  When the police were increased by 14%, the rate returned to earlier levels.  But Democrats would defund the police in America, anyway. 

Over 90% of violent crimes do not involve guns.  Per the CPRC, the following percent of Violent Crimes do NOT Involve guns:

• 2015  94%

• 2016  91%

• 2017  92%

• 2018  93%

• 2019  92%

• 2020  92%

• 2021  92%

• 2022  91%

Homicides peaked in 2020 and have come down but the murder rate was still 7 percent higher in 2023 than in 2019. Murthy and Biden blame this increase on the lack of gun control while ignoring the aforementioned defund the police budget cuts, DA’s refusing to prosecute violent criminals, bail reform, and release of prison inmates during the Covid pandemic. 

And let’s look a little deeper at Murthy’s (and Biden/Harris’) deceptive definition of children and adolescents.

The age of majority (no longer an adolescent) in 48 states is 18 and yet Murthy’s claim counts 18- and 19-year-olds as adolescents.

For those adolescents and children under 18:

In 2020 there were 2,443 deaths from vehicles and 2,218 from firearms.

In 2021, there were 2,668 vehicle and 2,519 firearm deaths.

In in 2022, the two numbers are virtually tied at 2,528 for vehicles and 2,538 for firearms.

When excluding justifiable homicides that are committed in self-defense by civilians and police, the number of firearm deaths for under 18s falls by more than several hundred. 

As people get older, suicides become more prevalent.  Even using numbers for those under the age of 20, in 2020, removing suicides would reduce the number of firearm deaths from 4,253 to 2,960 (CDC numbers) or from 3,405 to 2,112 (FBI).

People don’t decide, “I’ve got a gun I think I’ll commit suicide.”  They decide to commit suicide and then look for the means.  There are many other effective ways to commit suicide besides guns.

And when Biden, Harris and Murthy mention children, they want you to picture young children and not teenagers belonging to gangs.  Gang related shootings are significant causes of the deaths of older children.

The surgeon general wants to promote gun control through public health. He should first get his facts and logic right.

Rights for Me but not for Thee

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago: “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the Associated Press: “A member of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s security detail shot an armed man during an attempted carjacking in the early morning hours.  The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth.”

More per the Associated Press.  Per a Secret Service press release: “Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital. The agents, assigned to protect Naomi Biden, were out with her in the Georgetown neighborhood late Sunday night when they saw the three people breaking a window of the parked and unoccupied SUV.”

SCOPE note: Unoccupied vehicle.  They shot to protect property which would have broken a New York State law if it occurred in NY.

Ammoland reports that U.S. Representative Cori Bush (D-Mo) spent nearly $1 million on private security for herself out of campaign funds.  She is a strong gun control and defund the police advocate.

SCOPE note: The Washington Examiner reports that: "Squad" Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) is facing a competitive Democratic primary…with the release of a new poll that shows her trailing by 23 points to her challenger.” 

Will the Democrats run on more gun control for thee but continue to be protected by armed guards?  Bet on it.

In the United States vs Rahimi case, Attorney General Merrick Garland hoped to undermine gun rights using a case with an individual who was described as “anything but a poster child for the Second Amendment.”  Garland’s goal was to dismantle the ‘historical tradition methodology’ set down in the Bruen case and go back to “tiers of scrutiny” or interest balancing.  He failed in that specific attempt even though he technically won the case.

The background:

Zackey Rahimi, who police have described as a drug dealer, allegedly knocked his girlfriend to the ground and slammed her head into a car dashboard during an argument and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. She got a protective order that required him to stay away from her and barred Rahimi from having guns.

While the protective order was in effect, police say Rahimi allegedly shot into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger. He also was accused of shooting at another driver after a car accident and three other incidents in which he fired a gun.  Police investigating the shootings found several firearms when they executed a search warrant at Rahimi’s home.

Rahimi’s violation of a domestic violence protective order is against federal law. Rahimi’s attorneys appealed his conviction for that offense, arguing that he shouldn’t have been banned from having guns in the first place because that violated his constitutional rights.

Rahimi is not the public face you want when defending gun rights and victims of domestic violence are not sympathetic to him.  The deck seemed ‘stacked’ against the 2^nd Amendment. 

The Supreme Court’s decision rejected Rahimi’s argument but protected the Second Amendment as their ruling had a very narrow scope, focusing only on the case’s specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s ruled 8-1 against Rahimi.  But only because it was justified to temporarily take away Rahimi’s gun rights because he was a ‘credible threat.’  The ‘credible threat’ requirement was not what Garland wanted; he wants to disarm citizens for any felony violation, whether or not the citizen is a ‘credible threat.’  So, the 2^nd Amendment won while Rahimi lost since the ‘credible threat’ requirement was advanced. 

8-1 is important.  Anti-2Aers cannot claim this was just the conservative wing of the Supreme Court since two liberal wing justices concurred.  (Actually, the anti-2Aers will claim otherwise, anyway.)

SCOTUS actual ruling said: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” 

The domestic violence law fit the tradition of historical firearm regulations: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, the individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

The majority also rejected the federal government’s argument that Rahimi could be deprived of his right to have a gun because he is not a “responsible” citizen. “Responsible,” Roberts wrote, “is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail, and there is no support for such a rule in the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases.”  The decision also debunked the idea that only “responsible” citizens are entitled to Second Amendment protections. This clarification is a victory against potential abuses in gun licensing regimes that might seek to impose excessive restrictions.  (Memo to Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature: take note of this!)

Rahimi’s philosophy is reflected in other court decisions.

In Garland v. Range, Bryan Range sued the government because he became a prohibited person after pleading guilty to lying about his income to obtain food stamps. The Court stripped him of his gun rights for life. He claimed that the punishment was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The lower Court decided for the government, but the full bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Range.  So did SCOTUS which vacated the decision and remanded the suit back to the Third Circuit. Range was not convicted of a violent crime, and no one claims he is a danger to himself or others.  It’s now in the hands of the Third Circuit with direction from SCOTUS.

The United States. v. Daniels challenges the federal prohibition of drug users owning guns.  Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels.

 
The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment. The court explained that the nation’s history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. Thus, the court held that as applied to Defendant, then, Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with felon gun owners in the case of United States v. Duarte, overturning a federal law that prohibited felons, including non-violent offenders, from possessing firearms. Duarte had five non-violent felony convictions. During a traffic stop, Duarte was found in possession of a firearm, which he attempted to discard. He was subsequently indicted under 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), a law which bars felons from owning firearms. Duarte’s argued that this law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens, including those with non-violent felony convictions. The judges emphasized that the right to bear arms is an individual right belonging to “the people,” which includes Duarte.

The court found no historical tradition supporting a lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons.

The government had argued that felons are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, suggesting that only “virtuous citizens” have this right. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that such an interpretation could extend dangerously to other constitutional rights.  (Again, Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature should take note.)

Politicians should be known by their enemies.  If so, Vice Presidential candidate J D Vance is the poster boy for preserving the 2nd Amendment.

Everytown for Gun Safety’s website writes negatively: “He opposed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and supported arming teachers in classrooms.”

The Washington Post reports that “In 2022, Vance said he favored abolishing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws.”

It’s not just his enemies but the things he says that make Vance a 2A favorite.

In an Op-Ed* Vance wrote: “Democrat arguments for gun control rest on a series of falsehoods.  Violence in our country is much more about density than guns.  That’s why the Biden Administration’s dull attempts to curb gun violence don’t work and they threaten the very foundation of the rights we are afforded as free, American citizens.”

“Biden has also pushed for executive orders that would restrict ‘ghost guns’ and certain types of firearm braces.  This is the worst kind of political showmanship: these restrictions will make it harder for law-abiding Ohioans to exercise their Second Amendment rights and neither will have even a small effect on gun violence in our country.”

During his senatorial campaign, Vance vowed to “fight those who confiscate guns, whether it’s federal bureaucrats passing laws or multinational corporations punishing people for exercising their rights.”

Then there are Vance’s friends.

Randy Kozuch, chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, released a statement: “President Trump has made an outstanding choice in selecting Senator Vance as his vice presidential pick and running mate in the upcoming election. Senator Vance has been an unwavering supporter of constitutional freedoms, especially the right to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently stood against the Biden-Harris gun control agenda. Between now and November, the NRA and its millions of members will engage with America’s gun owners about the importance of electing the Trump-Vance ticket.”

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote: “In naming Sen. Vance his running mate for the 2024 election, former President Trump has tapped a strong Second Amendment stalwart and someone who proudly stands with the firearm industry and law-abiding Americans from coast-to-coast who believe in exercising their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.”

We already knew that Trump was a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment but the addition of Vance makes this the most pro 2nd Amendment presidential ticket in history. 

Is it enough to engage those gun owners who have sat out past elections and get them to the polls in November?  If you know one of these people, you might want to wake them up.

*Columbus Dispatch July 20, 2021

SCOPE’s Certificate of Incorporation says it is dedicated: “to the preservation of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America and particularly Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.”  Toward that end, the Certificate calls for collecting and disseminating information to “insure that political candidates, as well as elected officials and all government agencies shall continue to preserve to the individual citizens all of their rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution…”

SCOPE is more than just the 2nd Amendment, although that has become our focus. 

Since there can be little doubt that the establishment media is more biased than it has ever been, it is important that SCOPE members are made aware of non 2A issues that the establishment media lets slip by, intentionally, that will impact us.  Toward that end, Tom Rood has prepared an analysis of a NY Constitutional Amendment that will be on November’s ballot.

News you might not know about  by  Tom Rood

We all need to be watchful of the smoke and mirrors often used to pass laws that would, normally, never get past informed voters, at least in the following case.  Be informed about what we are asked to vote for in November.

The liberal state legislature and governor are trying to pull a fast one on all NY voters. It's buried in the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the NY State Constitution. It will be on the back side of your ballot for Nov 5th. 

The title is designed to attract voters into approving it - who could be against equal rights? Mainly, it's intended to attract liberal voters to vote in November. The libs know they are in deep trouble and are pulling out all stops to derail Trump. 

What's in this proposition? 

It's an amendment to our NY State Constitution. That means future NY State legislatures and future governors, perhaps of other political persuasions, will be prevented from changing the law without also making a new amendment to the NY Constitution. It will be locked in, nailed to the barn door, whether you like it or not. In other words, it codifies things you might not like and makes them the law of the land.

The funny thing that struck me is that the libs are hell bent to ignore the constitution, so why bother?

Republican legislatures sued to keep it off the ballot and lost- no surprise in NY. 

What's hidden in it?  

It puts abortion rights into the NY Constitution.  Not necessary since New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal. But putting abortion on the ballot is expected to bring out pro-abortion Democrats in greater numbers.  (But will it also energize anti-abortion voters, too?)

Some of this is to counter the US Supreme Court’s reversal on Roe vs Wade. However, as I read about the court's action on this, the decision was to return the issue to individual states as the federal government does not have the power, under the U S Constitution, to make a national law either for or against abortion.

Here’s the real reason for it. 

It expands the scope of discrimination based on race, religion, GENDER, reproductive freedom and protects them from being reversed by changing political tides. It updates the constitution so no New Yorker can be denied their rights based on ethnicity, national origin, disability, SEX (INCLUDING GENDER EXPRESSION), pregnancy or pregnancy outcome, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE and AUTONAMY. I read that last one as healthcare providers having to cover operations like sex changes. 

The bottom line- this amendment is vaguely worded for a reason. Among other things it could be used to block parents from having a say whether their children undergo gender reassessment surgery. It might be used to strip parent's legal rights with school age children including controversial gender transformation procedures. 

Another oppositional point includes schools being required to permit biological males competing on girls' sports teams or individual sporting contests.  And don’t forget coed bathrooms. 

If you are in agreement with this proposition, then by all means vote for it. But if it bothers you, you can color in the no box.

They're conservative! They're MAGA! They're pro-2A! And they aren't voting?!

On Friday SCOPE quoted the Babylon Bee. The following is an article from Not the Bee on July 12th.

Study shows that 10 million gun owners are not registered to vote, including millions of swing state voters.

Gun guys! What is going on?

A new study from Vote4America has revealed that there are 10 million gun owners and hunters in the United States who are not registered to vote!

Talk about a missed opportunity!

The wildest part? Tens of thousands of voters in crucial swing states — the states where the future of legal gun ownership may be decided! — haven't registered to vote:

Hunters and gun owners not registered to vote (per Women for Gun Rights)

Pennsylvania 515,277

Michigan 370,619

N Carolina 370,470

Georgia 350,897

Wisconsin 338,884

Missouri 281,102

Virginia 277,390

Arizona 133,094

Nevada 59,173

Montana 52,233

Half a million Pennsylvanians may be "clinging" to their guns like Obama decried years ago, but, fortunately for the Democrats, they don't show up to the polls!

Then we have Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia all with 300,000+ potential pro-gun voters who aren't going to the polls.

Donald Trump lost these states by a handful of votes! And we've got hundreds of thousands of gun toters who can't bother to register?

Adviser to the group [Vote4America] Baker Leavitt told District of Conservation podcast host Gabriella Hoffman in a recent appearance that the most common response in its outreach to gun owners is the sentiment 'My vote doesn't count, the system is rigged.'

Despite the pessimism, even marginal wins could pay big dividends come November. 'If we could convert 2% of all licensed hunters and get them to vote, GOP would win in a landslide,' Leavitt told Hoffman.

Hoffman noted that 'a lot of hunters and gun owners, they're very animated in social media, they have a lot of opinions, but they don't go out to vote. They talk a great deal, often about preserving your rights, doing this — hunting — but a lot of people don't follow through with voting.'

They're so checked out of the system that they don't realize that their votes — again, tens of thousands of them — could completely change the course of the country!

They're conservative! They're MAGA! They're pro-2A! And they aren't voting.

Gun owners, do us all a favor and get out there and vote!

Note: New York is not considered a “swing state.” But SCOPE estimates that 1.8 million out of 5.0 million gun owners vote. National averages have about 67% of eligible voters actually voting. If 67% of the gun owners in NY State voted that would be an additional 1.5 million votes. NY would become a “swing state” and a huge number of “down ballot” candidates would benefit.

Is the Babylon Bee Satire or News?

The satire site “The Babylon Bee” reported on July 9th: “With…polls showing GOP candidates building sizeable leads, the Republican Party rushed to implement an emergency platform change after seeing how close they were to winning a landslide victory.”

“Struggles on the Democratic side of the ticket…led to Republicans gaining tremendous momentum in recent weeks, causing leaders to shift gears and push for changes to the GOP platform in hopes of avoiding any decisive wins in November.”  (Emphasis added.)

What is The Bee talking about?

“The Reload” reported:

“The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language…However, it also minimized the party’s emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.”

The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party’s dedication to defending “our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.” The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.”  (Emphasis added.)

The Democrats platform has not yet been announced but in 2020 it was:  “Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system.  Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.”

Given the Democrats actions (which speak louder than words) over the last 3 ½ years, it’s logical that they will promise more of the same in 2024.

Remember how the Republican leadership was able to short circuit a landslide Republican victory in 2022?  Are they at it again?

The ‘geniuses’ heading the National Republican Committee must be using the New York State Committee leaders as the advisors, since the NY leaders have been so successful.  (Sarcasm intended.)

 Are they afraid of offending the anti-gun left and it will not vote for them?  Here’s some news; the anti-gun Left is never going to vote Republican!  They are amongst the 30% who believe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing a great job. 

Many potential Republican voters do not vote and, perhaps, one big reason is that they believe Republicans are not very rabid in supporting traditional, Republican / Conservative positions; like on the 2nd Amendment.  And if voters had any doubts, the National Republican Committee just proved the theory.

Perhaps the national leadership is walking softly so they do not offend those Democrats and Independents who might vote Republican.  Except, those Democrats and Independents may now be asking themselves -  if the Republican leadership cannot be trusted to fight for their own traditional values, why should Democrats and independents trust them?

On the positive side, the party platforms are more P R than substance and much of them rarely get followed.  (Although, the Democrats seem to mean their anti-gun rhetoric, which should alarm gun owners.)  But the National Republican Committee just gave a big P R victory to the Democrats.

Having vented our frustration at the Republicans, let’s add some perspective. 

Don’t forget that Democrats are equally able to make huge mistakes.  They were sure that bringing multiple court cases against Donald trump would sink his candidacy and give the Democrats an easy win.  How’s that working out?

The Democrats are the mortal enemies of our 2nd Amendment freedoms.  They will take away our gun rights through any possible method.  If they are in power after November, the 2nd Amendment will only last as long as the current Supreme Court membership lasts.  

There are many responsible Republicans who believe in our 2nd Amendment rights and will fight for them.  Unfortunately, the national leadership have some convoluted political agenda which works against their own grass roots.

Even though this is New York State, gun owners and any defenders of the 2nd Amendment need to contact their legislators, candidates and Republican County Chairpersons and give them an earful.  Let them know we are enraged by the national committee’s actions.

We should remember the example of Winston Churchill who was an ardent anti-communist but supported Stalin and the Soviet Union against Hitler in World War 2.  When asked about the hypocrisy of his position, he answered: “If Hitler invaded Hell I would have at least a few good words to say about Satan.” Like the candidate or not, sometimes the lesser evil is necessary to stop pure evil.

The Upcoming Presidential Election – Elections Matter  by John R. Elwood

     The upcoming 2024 American Presidential election carries unprecedented significance, potentially shaping the nation’s governance and trajectory for decades to come.  Liberal progressives, since Woodrow Wilson’s era, view this as a culmination of over a century’s efforts. In contrast, former President Trump, and the Republican party, championing the Make American Great Again (MAGA) movement, are fighting back.  But is it enough? Why is it the most important election in our lifetime? Inflation, immigration, crime, and national security are all important reasons, and all would seem to favor the Republicans. And don’t forget the Second Amendment?

     Inflation has surged during the Biden administration. But what exactly is inflation?  It is the rate at which prices rise over time. Across America, people from all economic backgrounds – whether upper, middle, or working class – have experienced increases in the cost of everything. 

     Over the past 40 years, successive presidential administrations have aimed to maintain inflation below 2 percent. At the conclusion of former President Trump’s term, inflation stood at 1.4 percent, the lowest in decades. However, in early 2022 during the Biden administration, inflation soared to 9.1 percent, a level not seen since 1981. And remember, future inflation rates, even if lower, now include that 9% in the base. 

     This increase can be attributed to two primary factors: escalating energy costs linked to the Green New Deal and substantial fiscal policy measures such as the 1.9 trillion-dollar American Rescue Plan and the 1.750 trillion-dollar Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. As a result, Americans have been experiencing the impact of inflation directly.  Grocery prices, for instance, surged by 21 percent since the beginning of 2021 under President Biden’s leadership, marking the highest inflation rate since the Great Depression, in Roosevelt’s era. 

     Gun owners have certainly noticed that ammo is not immune from these increases.

     In the area of illegal immigration, shortly after assuming office, President Joe Biden initiated a policy that resulted in a significant increase in illegal immigration at the southern border. According to the reports, the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States has doubled under his administration, totaling approximately ten million individuals (comprising 8.5 million encounters and 1.5 million individuals who evaded detection). This influx, as noted by Fox News, surpasses the population of 38 states.  Many of these illegal immigrants lack work visas and may find employment in the informal economy, including contract labor and potentially in illicit activities.  Moreover, the surge in ten million new illegal immigrants is expected to place considerable strain on social services such as healthcare, hospitals and school capacities, thus increasing taxes on American citizens. 

     With the increase of illegal immigrants into the United States, it is reasonable to think that incidents of crime will increase between illegal incidents and American citizens.  Might an increased need for personal protection be another reason to preserve and practice the 2nd Amendment?

     According to United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, criminal incidents involving non-citizens such as assault, battery, robbery, theft, fraud, DUI, illegal drug possession, illegal entry and re-entry all saw increases from 2021-2022. Reports from cables news network Breitbart and Representative Troy Nehls, (R-Texas) suggested that Venezuela had released violent prisoners who then crossed into the US via the southern border.  Various news media outlets also highlighted instances where American citizens were victims of crimes like rape, murder, extortion, and carjacking committed by illegal immigrants.  Among those affected were U.S Representative Henry Cuellar, who was carjacked in Washington D.C., and a Secret Service agent who was robbed in southern California.  The U.S. Border Patrol noted 172 encounters in fiscal year 2023 with individuals listed on the federal government’s known or suspected terrorists list, a notable increase from 100 in 2022 and 16 in 2021.

     Besides significant domestic issues troubling the country, many experts believe the United States is closer to World War III than ever before. In 2014, in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates book entitled, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War”, Secretary Robert Gates stated, “I think he (Joe Biden) has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

     President Biden ordered the complete retreat and withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021, marking the end of the 2001-2021 war.  The withdrawal was the most embarrassing moment in U.S. miliary history, leaving thousands of Americans and Afghans supporting the war effort behind, and an estimated seven billion dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment including an estimated 48 million dollars’ worth of ammunition. Zelgai Sajad, the former Afghan consul general in New York stated, “The Taliban are feeling power to implement their barbaric rules on the people of Afghanistan.” 

     Many experts think President Biden’s disastrous retreat and withdrawal from Afghanistan emboldened closer coordination between the “new axis of evil” (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea), and the idea that the United States is the weakest it has been for decades and they believe now is the time to make world-wide changes. 

     On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine hoping for a quick victory. After a stubborn Ukrainian force blunted Russian efforts, Iran began supplying Russia with advanced drones while North Korea provided thousands of rounds of artillery and is projected to begin deploying troops to Belarus, a Russia ally. Russia continues to bombard Ukraine and take additional ground.

     For years, by providing funds and military advisors for their operations, Iran supported its proxy forces: Hamas in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.  During the Trump years (2016-2020), due to U.S. sanctions, Iran did not have the funds to support Hamas’, Hezbollah’, or Houthis’ operations and the middle east remained relatively quiet. 

     In September 2023, President Biden handed over sixteen billion dollars to Iran. Shortly thereafter, Hamas launched an unprecedented and brutal attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, killing about 1, 200 Israelis and kidnapping approximately 250 hostages. Additionally, Hezbollah started bombarding Israel from the north.

     Our foreign enemies are emboldened and our country has been invaded by 10 million people of which we know very little.  More reasons why we need the protection of our 2nd Amendment rights.

What is Joe Biden doing about the Second Amendment?

     In September 2023, President Biden launched the inaugural White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, aimed at curbing firearm-related incidents. Vice-President Harris oversees the office, and it is led by Stefanie Feldman, a long-time aide of President Biden, and supported by gun violence advocates Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox. President Biden’s comprehensive gun violence initiative includes:

• Prohibiting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

• Mandating secure storage of firearms.

• Repealing immunity for gun manufacturers from liability.

     As gun owners in New York State, is this aligned with your preferences? What are former President Trump’s views on gun policy?

     The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed President Trump in both 2016, 2020, and recently in 2024. In 2016, President Trump pledged to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and military facilities.  His current gun policy proposal advocates for a nationwide right to carry concealed firearms.     

     The 2024 presidential election is arguably the most crucial of our lifetime. To all New York State gun owners, it is crucial that you participate and VOTE. Our Second Amendment rights hinge on YOUR vote! Your vote ensures that future generations – your sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters – will enjoy the same gun rights we cherish today.

Please get out and VOTE!  YOUR VOTE DOES MATTER!

SAVE Act

On June 27th, SCOPE sent an email about non-citizens voting in elections and the SAVE Act to prevent that*. Tuesday, Constantin Belyayev added his expertise on it and similar issues**. Then, Breitbart had an article about the SAVE Act worth reading. (Below.) Can you guess who is opposing the idea of having to prove you are an American citizen in order to vote?

SCOPE is trying to wake up gun owners that their government is being taken away from them while they sit on the sidelines. Opening our borders to illegal immigrants wasn’t an act of charity; it was a cold and calculated political move to steal the election and America.

Per Breitbart

House Democrats are planning to fight the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, set to be voted on the week of July 15, which would require state election officials to request proof of American citizenship before handing voter registration forms to applicants.

The SAVE Act, which Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has deemed critical to safeguarding the nation’s elections from foreign influence, would require state election officials to mandate voter registration applicants provide proof of American citizenship.

Such election officials would not be allowed to register applicants to vote in federal elections unless they have handed over proof of American citizenship, which can include a passport or birth certificate.

“Noncitizen voting is a threat to election integrity,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wrote in a policy brief on the SAVE Act:

Congress must pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that have allowed noncitizen voting, to enhance election security, to reduce the risk of foreign election interference, and to restore Americans’ confidence in U.S. elections. [Emphasis added]

House Democrats, though, are preparing a major fight over the issue, according to Axios.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) is demanding Democrats vote against the SAVE Act, putting pressure on those who represent swing districts that voted for former President Donald Trump and face tough reelection bids.

A YouGov poll published in July 2022 found that 65 percent of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections — including 48 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of swing voters, and 88 percent of Republicans.

Fewer than 25 percent of Americans oppose requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

*S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Non-Citizen Voting (scopeny2a.org)

**S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Illegal Aliens vs Citizens (scopeny2a.org)

Illegal Aliens vs Citizens  by Constantin Belyayev

This article is prompted by a recent (27 June 2024) S.C.O.P.E. mailing entitled “Non-Citizen Voting”. Based on my 20-plus years of immigration enforcement experience I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

First, a little bit of background. I joined the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1996 as a criminal investigator / special agent. My first duty post was in New York City, a common first stop. Shortly thereafter I transferred to an INS office located within the New York State Department of Correctional Services (NYSDOCS), where our mission was to identify and remove incarcerated criminal aliens, legally or illegally present in the U.S. In 1999 I transferred to the Albany, NY, field office, where I remained until my retirement in 2018.

When I first started, INS itself was an agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2003, right after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency’s functions were merged with those of U.S. Customs, formerly of the U.S. Treasury, and transferred to the new department. The new combined agency became the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) first, and then simply Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as we all know it today. (Word on the street was that the FBI could not suffer any other “bureau” to exist…)

During my career with INS and then with ICE, I was primarily tasked with enforcing criminal and civil statutes dealing with aliens and nationality. In the latter part of my career, I concentrated on cases involving Identity and Benefit Fraud, which concerned various schemes to obtain immigration benefits in the U.S. through fraudulent means.

The subject of non-citizen voting necessarily leads to far too many other collateral issues that could be addressed. To keep it brief and to the point I shall limit my comments to a just a few.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is part of Title 8 of the United States Code (USC), a set of laws which deals with aliens and nationality. The INA contains civil provisions describing prohibited conduct with respect to U.S. immigration laws. Civil provisions of the INA allow for deportation (removal) of aliens who have violated U.S. immigration laws based on a multitude of grounds. They also allow for fines against aliens and U.S. citizens such as employers hiring aliens without work authorization. Criminal provisions of Title 8 and Title 18 (General Crimes) allow for criminal prosecution of aliens and those aiding and abetting them to violate U.S. laws.

With respect to non-citizen voting, several civil INA statutes come to mind immediately:

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact (making some type of false claim)

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) or INA 237(a)(3)(D) – False Claim to U.S. Citizenship

INA 212(a)(10)(D) or INA 237(a)(6) – Aliens who Voted Unlawfully

Bear in mind that an alien does not have to be illegally present in the U.S. to be deported (removed) under the above statutes. According to Federal law, only U.S. citizens may vote. And thus, we proceed to the next section involving criminal statutes.

18 USC 911, False Claim to U.S. Citizenship, a felony. The law applies to documented provable oral and written false claims of U.S. citizenship. Even falsely marking a check box on a form stating "U.S. Citizen" could make one chargeable under this law. It is a “bread-and-butter” statute commonly used in immigration enforcement. My colleagues and I used this statute successfully on many occasions. It goes hand in hand with unlawful voting by aliens since to vote, an alien must swear or affirm that he or she is a U.S. citizen. We have seen, in recent times, numerous attempts by local and state governments to “bend the rules” so that non-citizens could vote, but the Federal statutes are quite clear:

18 USC 611, Voting by Aliens, a felony, specifically proscribes voting by aliens in any Federal election.

18 USC 1015, Naturalization, Citizenship, or Alien Registry, specifically subsection (f) makes it unlawful for any alien to vote in any Federal, state, or local election by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. A violation of this statute is also a felony.

8 USC 1324, Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens. Any and every individual or entity, whether governmental or private, whether acting in their official capacity or privately, is subject to this statute. 8 USC 1324 says, in sum and substance, that it is unlawful to conceal, harbor, shield from detection any illegal alien, or to induce any alien to illegally enter into or reside in the U.S. Of course, there are court precedents and case law upon which prosecutors must rely in undertaking any case, and individual exceptions such as law enforcement bringing in informants or witnesses. Also, there is nothing to prevent U.S. Congress from creating a mechanism for aliens to obtain legal status. But if appropriately applied, many members of the current Federal Administration and New York State government could technically be chargeable under this statute. Failure to process incoming aliens for court hearings, clandestine night-time flights bearing aliens into the interior, unsolicited bus runs upstate from New York City, sanctuary policies of any governmental entity, and any similar conduct all qualify for potential evidence of 8 USC 1324.

Of course, the bigger issue under the current Administration is that U.S. Attorneys who are answerable to DOJ would be understandably reluctant to prosecute these and other similar crimes. It is stating the obvious that the Administration wants as many aliens to enter the U.S. as possible in hopes they would vote for the Democratic establishment. Consequently, the next U.S. Attorney who sticks his or her neck out in this manner may just wind up in Alaska prosecuting Innuits for illegal whale poaching or some such thing. Remember, a federal statute (or any other statute) is only as good as the Executive Branch employee who is willing (or allowed) to enforce it.

New York State has gone to great lengths to keep illegal aliens from being detected and dealt with according to law. Here are a few examples:

New York Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act, S. 1747B, commonly known as the Green Light Law, was signed by Governor Cuomo on 17 June 2019 and took effect in New York on 16 December 2019. It allowed illegal aliens to obtain “standard” drivers licenses (not Federally-accepted documents for travel under the REAL ID Act). Moreover, it took away the ability of immigration officials to access New York State motor vehicle records and instituted a requirement that a judicial warrant or subpoena be served for any such requests.

As if this was not enough, this law was yet further amended as part of the 2020 New York State budget, signed by Governor Cuomo on 3 April 2020. The amended version made it a Class E felony for any official of the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) to provide any DMV records to any agency “that primarily enforces immigration law” (S. 7508B, Part YYY, Section 1, Subdivision 12 (a) and (b)). Some of the other provisions involve informing the individual whose record is being requested and certifying that the record would not be used for immigration enforcement purposes. Effectively, today an ICE agent may no longer conduct a simple license plate check in New York.

New York Protect Our Courts Act, A. 2176A, was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo 15 December 2020. This law prevents immigration officials from entering any court in New York State in order to effect a civil arrest of an alien without a warrant or for a matter unrelated to the instant court proceeding. By way of explanation, a warrant is not initially required to effect the arrest of an alien on civil (not criminal) grounds of deportability or removability.

New York For All Act, S. 987 / A. 5686, last introduced in 2023. While, thankfully, this measure has not yet passed after being introduced on multiple occasions since 2019, it shows the lengths to which New York State officials are willing to go in order to unlawfully shield the illegal alien population from Federal enforcement efforts. This act would effectively end all cooperation between any New York State employee and any Federal agency which enforces immigration laws with virtually no exceptions.

Sanctuary city and state laws, while not specific to New York, already prevent cooperation between state and Federal law enforcement. A sanctuary state, by its very definition, violates 8 USC 1324 in that it harbors, conceals, and shields from detection illegal aliens. I wouldn’t bet on any U.S. Attorney taking such a case any time soon, however…

Yes, NY State (and the current Federal Administration) have taken great steps to encourage aliens to vote. And while it is still unlawful to do so under Federal law, "workarounds" persist. The affidavit attached to the NY State Voter Registration form is one such clever “workaround”. It does not require the applicant to blatantly lie by claiming some legal status and the ability to vote through U.S. citizenship. It merely allows the applicant to attest to the fact that he/she does not have a Social Security Number. The State does the rest.

Criminal behavior abounds in NY. Good luck getting anyone charged... unless, of course, you happen to possess a scary-looking black rifle legal in most other states. Or those that have been sitting on the sidelines on election day will finally decide to vote.