Attacking 2A From All Directions

No one can deny that the leadership of the Democrat Party is thoroughly anti-Second Amendment.  But repealing that amendment is a ‘bridge too far’ so they try to weaken it in various ways.  Nowhere is that truer than in New York State.

The following are groups of laws that are currently proposed in the NY Legislature to weaken or neuter the 2nd Amendment.  The list is divided into various tactical strategies to destroy 2A in order to demonstrate the variety of approaches that gun grabbers are using.  Some laws are repeated with different bill numbers.  (A are Assembly bills and S are Senate bills.)  The most dangerous bills are those proposed in both the Assembly and the Senate.

Please remember that these proposals are in addition to the many anti-2A laws already in force in NYS; for instance, the SAFE Act and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Make owning a firearm more expensive

A01290 / S6395: Tax on the sale of Ammo.  $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less.  $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

A06024 / S01315: Tax on the sale of Ammo.  $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less.  $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

S05813:                        11% Excise Tax on firearms. Components and ammo.

A05611 / S05974:     Requires $1 million in liability insurance

A07186:                        Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

A03376:                        Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

Use time to discourage firearm possession
Bureaucracy and Increased Expense
Lawfare
Devices

A08853 / S04277:  .50 caliber or greater firearms: possession of new ones prohibited; currently owned ones must be registered.
S01358:                   All pistols or revolvers sold must have a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five years old child from operating it.  (Ten pounds pull; an average five years old child's hands are too small to operate it; and require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.

A03233 / S00362: 10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01210:                    10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01774 / S00418: Buy only one (1) firearm every 30 days

S04807:                     Buy only one (1) rifle or shotgun every 90 days

A00360 / S03981:Hunting license, 5 hours safety course and exam, live fire instruction and test with 90% accuracy, drug test, mental health evaluation, criminal background check, safe storage container all necessary to buy firearm.

S04790:                    Purchaser of any firearm must submit to a mental health exam.

A04085 / S00658:  To possess a firearm must have a Firearms Safety Certificate (5 hours of classroom and 2 hours of live fire) and pass a written exam.

A09373 / S08608: Add much bureaucracy for selling guns to NY State

A00929:                     NY Attorney General prosecute firearm sales in other states to NY residents without going through NYS Police.

A05711:                      Easier for law officer to apply for ERPO (Red Flag).

A1962B / S3385A:  Class A misdemeanor to not safely store firearms accessible to a minor or a prohibited person when

A08406:                     Applications to seize firearms when the family court not in session.

A00436 / S00744:  Includes pistol converters in the definition of a rapid-fire modification device. (No definition of what a pistol converter is.)

 A03021 / S2158:    Establish and maintain a database of information relating to the sale or use of micro-stamped firearms.

A05105:                     Makes criminal possession of a ghost gun a class C felony

A07810 / S06403:  Civil actions against any person manufacturing, distributing, transporting, or importing into the state, or causing to be distributed, transported, or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any assault weapon or ghost gun.

3D printers

A02228 / S03562:  Criminal background check to buy 3D printer capable of printing firearms

A1777A / S0227A:  Sale, distribution or disposal of digital instructions to program  a 3D printer  to  manufacture  or  produce any machine-gun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition  feeding  device, disguised  gun, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, rapid-fire modification device or  major  component  of  a firearm, rifle or shotgun, to a person in New York who is not registered or licensed  as  a  gunsmith with  a Type 7 Federal Firearms License, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Manufacture of a ‘ghost gun,’ unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, or major component of a firearm, rifle or shotgun or disguised gun is guilty of a class D felony.

A02060 / S05952: Only registered gunsmiths can manufacture a firearm on a 3D printer and any firearm manufactured by a 3D printer must contain a unique identifying number and to be registered with the state police.

Locations

A01953:                         Restricts the locations of gunsmiths and dealers in firearms in relation to child day care or educational facilities, and places of worship.

A05817 / S06787:  Increases sentences for weapons within 5,000 feet of school grounds.

A07382 / S01382:  Prohibition against concealed firearms in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

A08895 / S01799:  Limits hours of operation, addresses noise pollution and limits operations to one weekend each month for municipal shooting ranges and ranges used by law enforcement.

S01273:                          Prohibits openly carrying a rifle or shotgun.  Exception for hunting, private property and other exceptions

S05292:                          Class A misdemeanor to sell a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition on state property including state and county fairgrounds, and county, city and municipal property.

Limit Persons Accessing Guns

A00346:                       Must be 21 to possess any firearm.  Exception for hunting.

A01764 / S04388:  Prohibits marketing firearms and firearm related products to anyone under 18 years old except where marketing is geared toward hunting.

A01920:                     Prohibits entry to gun shows to anyone under twelve years of age.

S01440:                    Revokes a license to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms for a conviction for failure to safely store firearms.

Studies

A1191B / S1455A: Study the viability of personalized firearms.

A02084 / S01289:  Establishes the office of gun violence prevention and the gun violence advisory council.         

Maryland’s Sensitive Places

The Bruen decision said that states could designate certain ‘sensitive places’ as gun free zones.  But Justice Thomas warned against overreach in designating these places.

Thumbing its nose at the Bruen decision, New York State passed the mis-named Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  (CCIA.)  It was not alone.  Several deep Democrat states passed similar laws, at least in part.  All these states have something in common; they took advantage of the opportunity to name places as ‘sensitive areas’ and totally ignored Justice Thomas’ warning about overreach.

Last week SCOPE wrote about the Supreme Court hearing the case about Hawaii’s overreach (Wolford v Lopez).  At that same time, an appeals court was hearing a similar case and its decision may be an omen of what is in store for New York State’s CCIA.

On January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property that was held open to the public is unconstitutional.  (For instance: Gas stations, grocery stores, etc.)

The judges said that Maryland’s prohibition was “directed at gun owners, not property owners…With or without the new private-property consent rule, Maryland property owners have the right to exclude unwanted people (including those with guns) from their property.”

In addition, examples of historical precedence cited by Maryland were weak because: “Many of the historical statutes Maryland cites appear to regulate hunting on others’ property without permission.”

The Justices concluded: “Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones.’ But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far…In short, there is no relevant historical tradition supporting Maryland’s private-property consent rule, at least on this record and as to property held open to the public.”

However, the court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule for property not held open to the public.  (For instance: Homes, farms, etc.)

The ruling did allow certain places to be named as gun free zones.  Some were unanimous (as noted) but others were (held) by a 2 to 1 majority.  They are:

-  unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in government buildings is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in public transportation is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns on school grounds is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration is constitutional (provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave)

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in state parks, is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in museums is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in healthcare facilities is constitutional

-  hold that Maryland’s prohibitions on guns at stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos are constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in locations that sell alcohol is constitutional.

The judge who disagreed with parts of the ruling issued a partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks “hollowing out the Second Amendment.”  He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose.”

This decision only applies to the 4th circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.)  But combined with the Supreme Court’s seemingly dislike (in oral arguments) of a broad definition of ‘sensitive places that are open to the public’ and the 4th Circuit’s outright rejection of that principle, this is good news for New York gun owners and bad news for Kathy Hochul and CCIA.  

The lawsuit’s gun owners will have to decide if they will ask the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or do nothing.  Do they want to challenge those places the 4th circuit allowed, especially those without a majority decision? 

Here is a link to the actual 94 page decision   241799.P.pdf

Wolford v Lopez is Heard by SCOTUS

SCOPE wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepting a lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions.  The high court must answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”

On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in this case.

The gun owners lawyer told the justices that “[b]y banning people from carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public unless they first obtain affirmative permission, Hawaii has run roughshod over that constitutional right.” Hawaii’s ban is inconsistent with our national historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, (who has never let the United States Constitution come before her personal politics), cited ‘Black Codes’ which were enacted after the Civil War to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people as an appropriate historical precedent.  Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were at some later point determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Sane justices disagreed with Justice Jackson.  Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the court should consider the Black Codes’ law at all, calling it an “outlier.”  Justice Alito pointed out that the law was designed to prevent formerly enslaved people from defending themselves against members of the Ku Klux Klan and “racist law enforcement officers.”

Hawaii’s lawyer agreed that the Black Codes “are undoubtedly a shameful part of our history,” but should still be used!  According to Hawaii’s lawyer and Justice Jackson, an unconstitutional law is evidence to support making another law constitutional.

Justice Alito noted, and Hawaii’s lawyer agreed, that it would violate the First Amendment for the state to ban particular political attire in a restaurant without “express consent from the owner of the restaurant.”

Hawaii’s lawyer emphasized that “the Second Amendment … is not a second-class right.” But then he argued that there are key differences between the First and Second Amendments, which effectively makes the Second Amendment less of a right than the First Amendment. 

Justice Jackson also advocated a property rights approach in an effort to save Hawaii’s law but it appeared to be unsuccessful.

Virtually all of the court’s six Republican appointees seemed to agree with the challengers that Hawaii’s law violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.  This would impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.

O Canada:  NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL FIREARMS OWNERS, ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM (ASFCP)

The Canadian Firearms Program facilitated the delivery of this notification on behalf of Public Safety Canada and has not shared or disclosed any licence holder names, addresses or personal information with Public Safety Canada. Please ensure that your email is up-to-date with the Canadian Firearms Program to receive direct program updates. Alternatively, updates will be available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

This notice is being sent to all holders of a valid Possession and Acquisition License (PAL).

As part of various actions and programs to tackle gun violence in Canadian communities, beginning in May 2020 the Government of Canada deemed prohibited more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms. Should you own one of these prohibited firearms, thank you for safely storing and not using that prohibited firearm.

In prohibiting these particular firearms, such as the AR-15, the Government of Canada also committed to compensate eligible businesses and PAL holders who are impacted.

The purpose of this notice is to provide you with the opportunity to be compensated should you own one or more of these prohibited firearms.

Over 12,000 of these prohibited firearms were successfully collected from businesses from across Canada. More than $22 million in compensation has been provided to these businesses.

To determine if you own a prohibited firearm, please search the list of 2,500 makes and models. The list is available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

If you do not own one of these prohibited firearms, you do not need to do anything more.

If you do own one of these prohibited firearms, and you wish to participate in the ASFCP and apply for compensation, you must first declare the prohibited firearm(s) in your possession.

You may do so during the nation-wide declaration period, which begins on January 19th, 2026, and ends on March 31st, 2026. After March 31st, 2026, declaration requests will no longer be processed.

To complete the declaration or for more information about the ASFCP, please visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

It is important to note that an amnesty has been in place since 2020. This amnesty ensures every impacted PAL holder can hold onto the prohibited firearms until the end of the amnesty.

This amnesty is scheduled to end on October 30th, 2026.

All prohibited firearms and devices must be disposed of or permanently deactivated prior to that date. If you remain in possession of an impacted firearm following this date, you will be noncompliant with legislation.

Thank you for your continued commitment to safe firearms practices and compliance with all firearms rules and regulations.

Additional Information for the ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Compensation will be determined primarily on a first come first served basis, based on the date your declaration is submitted and the availability of Program funds at that time. To increase your likelihood of receiving compensation, pending eligibility, you are encouraged to submit your declaration as early as possible. Submitting a declaration does not guarantee you will receive compensation.

To complete the declaration or for more information about the ASFCP, please visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

This webpage also contains information on: the list of eligible Assault-Style Firearms (ASFs) and their compensation amounts; other options for compliance with the prohibitions; and the Amnesty Orders.

Reminder: while the compensation program is voluntary, compliance with the law is not. Impacted firearms and devices must be disposed of, or deactivated by the end of the amnesty period on October 30th, 2026.

If you do not wish to return your firearm under the Program, alternative options are available to you before the amnesty period expires on October 30th, 2026:

U. S. v. Hemani

The Supreme Court has said it would hear United States v. Hemani.  The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. That statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’

The FBI had been monitoring Ali Hermani (a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Pakistan) for suspected terrorist ties.  He was found in possession of a 9mm handgun alongside small amounts of marijuana and cocaine during a search of his home. He was not under the influence of any drugs at the time of the search but he confessed to law enforcement that he was a daily marijuana user.

Hemani was charged by a grand jury with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The district court granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in United States v. Connelly that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional when the government did not prove the defendant was intoxicated at the time of possessing the firearm, even if the defendant was a regular drug user. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Connelly, and similar cases, questioned the constitutionality of categorical bans on gun possession by drug users without proof of actual dangerousness at the time of possession.

Hemani’s case was factually similar: the government did not allege he was under the influence at the time of firearm possession.

Hermani’s attorneys argued that the federal statute in question is constitutionally vague and does not hold up under the 2022 Bruen decision.

Attorneys for the DOJ argued that colonial-era laws against “common drunkards” armed with weapons, as well as more than 100 years of restrictions on firearms possession by drug addicts, meet the Bruen requirement for “history and tradition.”

The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed the charge.  The ruling only applies to the 5th Circuit.

There is now a circuit split: the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in certain as-applied cases while the Seventh Circuit has upheld it.

The Department of Justice appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which has agreed to take up the case.

Since Bruen(2022) SCOTUS has heard four Second Amendment-related cases.

• In Garland v. Cargill (2024) the court found that a bump stock does not convert guns into machine guns under federal gun laws.

• InUnited States v. Rahimi (2024) the court found that a person can be temporarily disarmed if a court deems that the individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another person.

• In Bondi v. Vanderstok (2025) the court found that the ATF has the authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate unfinished frames and parts kits.

• In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos  (2025) the court found that Mexico failed to prove that seven American gun makers routed guns to Mexican drug cartels through unlawful sales.

Bruce Blakeman

SCOPE had published research on Kathy Hochul and Elise Stefanik as candidates for governor.  Before Stefanik dropped out, Bruce Blakeman had announced he was also going to run for governor.  Once Stefanik dropped out, Blakeman was endorsed by the Republican and Conservative parties as well as President Trump, so it appears he is going to be the Republican candidate.

Getting right to the point, SCOPE could not find any statement about Blakeman’s position on the 2nd Amendment.  Not entirely a surprise in politics around NY City.  But there are some hopeful signs and perhaps, as the campaign continues, he will become more acquainted with 2A and make its defense a campaign issue. 

Blakeman has had one instance involving 2A.  After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, he helped conduct a rifle drive which resulted in the collection of 60 rifles for Ukraine.  Kel-Tec delivered the donated guns to Ukraine as part of a larger shipment.

Since that’s all we have on 2A, here’s some background on Blakeman.

In 2021, Blakeman was elected Nassau County Executive with 50.35% of the vote.  This was surprising since the county has 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

In 2025, Blakeman was reelected by a bigger margin of 12%, even though the Democrats still had a 110,000-voter registration advantage.  So, in a Democrat county, Blakeman won twice and increased his margin.  Something to note in Democrat controlled New York State.

Bruce Blakeman is a lawyer and has also served in unelected posts.  He was a commissioner for the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, a Nassau County legislator and Hempstead town councilman.  In 2017, Blakeman endorsed a Democratic in the race for Hempstead Town Supervisor.  The Democrat won and named Blakeman Deputy Town Supervisor.  Then, in 2019, Blakeman endorsed a Republican for Town Supervisor against his former endorsee; the Republican won.

His actions on hot topics may give us some clues about him.

Blakeman opposes the 2019 New York bail reform and has called for its repeal. He issued an executive order permitting the Nassau County Police Department to disclose when a person released without bail is rearrested.

Blakeman created a patrol unit within the Nassau County Police Department modeled on the NYPD's "Hercules" counterterrorism unit.

Blakeman recruited 75 people for a force of "special deputies" to deploy during emergencies. Many of them were former police officers. 

Blakeman’s campaign web site says that Blakeman said NO to Kathy Hochul’s sanctuary policies, and worked with ICE to take criminals off our streets. As County Executive, Bruce Blakeman hired 600 new Police and Law Enforcement Officers.

In 2024, U S News and World Report ranked Nassau County as the safest county in America.

Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Blakeman held a rally in support of Israel where 6,000 people attended.  Aid for Israeli Defense Force soldiers was collected at the rally

In February 2024, Blakeman issued an executive order banning women's sports teams that include transgender women from using county facilities.  (A state judge struck down the order on the grounds that the county executive lacked the authority to impose the ban but the county legislature passed a similar ban the next month and more lawsuits ensued.)

During COVID, he signed an executive order making masks optional, contravening the state mandate.

Blakeman is pro-choice on abortion, which he believes neutralizes one of the Democratic Party’s potent weapons and allows him to shift the campaign squarely onto Hochul’s record.

A fun but meaningless fact: Blakeman’s former wife is now married to Paul McCartney of The Beatles.

ERPO for 11-Year-Old Girl

One of the main complaints against Red Flag Laws / Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) is that they are unnecessary and can be easily abused by the government.  Here is an example. 

A state Supreme Court justice in Ulster County ruled that the Attorney General’s petition seeking a protection order to keep guns away from a child constituted frivolous conduct.

An 11-year-old identified only as K.L., had a text exchange with a friend in which she told the friend that she was considering suicide. K.L.’s friend showed the texts to her mother, who contacted law enforcement, and State Police responded. Troopers interviewed K.L. in the presence of her parents and she made no comments about hurting herself and displayed no suicidal ideation in the trooper’s presence. After a voluntary search, troopers concluded that there were no guns in K.L.’s home. Nevertheless, State Police filed a petition for a temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), which Supreme Court Justice Julian D. Schreibman denied.

Schreibman held a hearing on Feb. 6 to determine whether to issue a final ERPO. Schreibman denied the ERPO and wrote: “It is illegal in the state of New York for an 11-year-old child to handle a firearm, much less to possess or own one … In short, before any ERPO petition was brought, K.L. was legally barred from possessing any gun.”

Also, under New York’s Environmental Conservation Law, the youngest a person can be issued a hunting license is 12, he noted.

“Thus, the foregoing provisions establish that there is a blanket prohibition, without exception, on 11-year-olds possessing firearms of any kind. In light of that comprehensive legal bar, it is plainly unwarranted under existing law to seek an ERPO against an 11-year-old child.”

Not to be denied, the Attorney General tried another tactic and argued that if an ERPO was issued and the parents bought any guns, they would have to store them in a secure location, away from K.L. But without an ERPO, the state argued, the parents could just leave guns out.

Schreibman said that was “flatly wrong.”

“Having an ERPO in place against a child does not create or increase the parents’ criminal liability for improper weapons storage,” Schreibman wrote. State law imposes the exact same responsibilities for safe storage and criminal consequences for non-compliance on any gun owner who lives with a person who is under 18.

“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in the prosecution of an ERPO against … K.L., the office of the Attorney General engaged in frivolous conduct,” he wrote.

Kudos to the friend and all those involved in taking the suicide threat seriously.

Kudos to the judge who did not succumb to the pressure of finding for an ERPO.

Thumbs down to the State Police who filed for the ERPO and the Attorney General who never misses an opportunity to infringe on the Second Amendment.  There are already sufficient other safeguards that both the State Police and the Attorney General chose to ignore.

https://nydailyrecord.com/2025/12/24/judge-denies-erpo-for-11-year-old-girl/

Wolford v Lopez (Hawaii)

After NYSRPA v Bruen negated several strategies that had been used by New York State to neuter our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights, New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was enacted by our Democrat legislature and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul.  It contained numerous parts that are abhorrent to the U S Constitution.  We are not alone in being so poorly treated by our state government.  California, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii also enacted similar restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.  Especially popular by these states was designating almost all private property as gun-free zones unless otherwise posted.  (A gun is of limited use if you can’t carry it anywhere but in your house.)

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted a private lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions in which the high court will answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”

Now, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted an amicus brief (otherwise known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief) to the Supreme Court that pointedly argues that, citing the Bruen (2022) decision, the “government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry.”

The DOJ’s amicus brief explains that Bruen invalidated Hawaii’s prior firearm-licensing regime, “under which Hawaiians could virtually never obtain public-carry licenses. Hawaii responded by loosening its licensing restrictions, yet it simultaneously enacted a new restriction that effectively nullifies those licenses and prevents public carry. Specifically, Hawaii made it a crime for licensees to carry firearms on private property open to the public—the very places where licensees would go in their daily lives—unless those establishments provide ‘[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization’ or post ‘clear and conspicuous signage’ allowing firearms.”

After stating that the “United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms …” the DOJ’s brief points out that the “‘right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home’ ranks among the Second Amendment’s most basic guarantees. Bruen thus held that the government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry. Nor, more broadly, may the government restrict firearms without showing that the restriction fits within a discernible tradition of firearm regulation.”

If Hawaii’s law is declared unconstitutional, that should take down similar laws in states like…New York, where a lawsuit mounts a similar challenge.  Under normal circumstances, when it is a private citizen challenging the state, New York might try to ignore the SCOTUS ruling, basically saying “sue me” and forcing the private citizen to pay for the lawsuit.  But since the federal government has taken an interest – and has even deeper pockets than NY State – NY State might be less apt to ignore SCOTUS.

Baird v Bonta

Historically, the Ninth Circuit is the most leftist / progressive / district in the federal court system; it’s also the most reversed appeals court.  Well, surprise!  In Baird v Bonta, a three-judge appellate panel, composed of two judges appointed by President Trump during his first term came down on the side of ‘open carry’ when they said in their opinion’s summary:

“…the historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry

is part of this Nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly
protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation.”

This appellate decision reversed, in part, a district court’s decision.

The details from the majority opinion clearly state the issue and the reasoning:

“California's has banned open carry in all counties with a population greater than 200,000.  According to the most recent census, those counties are home to roughly 95% of the state's population. The 5% of California's population for whom open carry is not outright banned everywhere in the state are purportedly able to apply for a license that would allow them to exercise their constitutional right to open carry in just their county of residence, although their ability to secure even that license is, on the record before us, at best unclear….”

“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms. It remains the norm across the country—more than thirty states generally allow open carry to this day, including states with significant urban populations. Indeed, several of our Nation's largest cities and states recently returned to unlicensed open carry by explicitly authorizing it. For example, Texas reauthorized open carry without a license in 2021. Kansas likewise transitioned back to allowing open carry without a permit in 2015. And other states that placed restrictions on open carry in recent decades have also removed those burdens.”

“Similarly, for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California. From 1850, when California first became a state, until the Mulford Act of 1967, public carry of firearms in California (open or concealed) was entirely unregulated...”

Bruen said "history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether." (“Public carry” includes both open and concealed carry.)  Bruen established that modest burdens were likely constitutional as long as they do not prevent the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights and served the government’s interest in ensuring only law-abiding citizens were carrying arms.  For example, background checks, modest fees and short wait times would likely be constitutional.

Both sides used the NYSRPA v Bruen decision to justify their position, but the majority smacked down the minority’ opinion.

The third judge, a President GW Bush appointee, concurred in part and dissented in part.  His dissent said:

First, open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.  

Second, following the reasoning of Bruen, California may lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect its citizens so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense. Because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.

The majority countered the dissent: “…that is not only a basic logical error, but also obviously a wrong way to interpret language in Supreme Court opinions…. If the Supreme Court said, "States cannot ban speech altogether," nobody would think it was also implicitly saying that as long as the state allows some speech, it necessarily can ban all other speech. …” 

The dissent also assumed that California’s various local licensing schemes are all effectively “shall issue” and without onerous restrictions on place, design and function of the “allowed” firearms.  (Gun owners in California would argue that the reality is different.)

This was a good win for 2A but the judges did throw a partial loss to us. The court upheld California’s licensing requirements in counties with populations under 200,000.  The panel found that, “shall-issue” licensing schemes align with Bruen by allowing permits based on a general desire for self-defense. But the judges raised legitimate concerns about the state’s apparent subterfuge, noting that no open-carry licenses have been issued despite the legal framework.

The appellate court’s decision may be appealed to an en-banc hearing by all the judges in the Ninth Circuit or it may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). 

This Ninth’ Circuit’s opinion is the opposite of the Second Circuit (New York, etc.) which found in Frey v N Y City that a ban on Open Carry was constitutional.  A split like this, if it stands, is the kind of case that SCOTUS is likely to hear. 

A Christmas To Remember

The July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence had real world consequences for the signers.  One of them, Benjamin Rush, recalled: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism.  All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence. As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be honored, not denigrated.

While independence was being celebrated in Philadelphia, 23,000 British soldiers and 10,000 Hessian mercenaries were being unloaded from ships in NYC Harbor, where George Washington, by order of the Continental Congress, had to defend the undefendable.

Eventually, the colonial army was driven out of New York City and it retreated across New Jersey to Valley Forge Pennsylvania, where things became even more desperate.

The enlistments of the bulk of Washington’s army were due to expire and there was little hope of many reenlistments.  Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months.  Food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up.  Instead, he gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

In the early evening of December 25, 1776, in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and crossed the ice clogged Delaware River, in three groups.  The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group made it across but turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey. 

Officers reported to Washington that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

While the Hessian enemy was yawning and waking up, Washington attacked.  The Continental Army was in rags with long hair and matted beards coated in rain and mud; it looked like the army-from-hell had come screaming from the depths to kill the Hessians.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

In what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not despair.  He never lost sight of his goal.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today; we’re Americans, we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to defeat our country’s enemies. 

Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution and at Trenton.  For example: The leader of the Hessians in Trenton was Colonel Rall, Rall’s spies had told him of Washington’s attack.  The Hessians knew Washington was coming!  Rall acted properly and increased the guard and had a reserve force ready to reinforce wherever he was attacked.  On Christmas afternoon, one of Rall’s sentry posts was attacked.  The Hessians sprang into action and the attackers quickly retreated after a brief and ineffective exchange of gunfire.  Rall had little respect for Washington and the colonials. He so disrespected the colonials that he believed this was the attack he expected, so he relieved the guard and the reserve and he went to a Christmas party. 

Who attacked the sentry post?  To this day, no one knows.  The best guess is some farmers had too much “Christmas cheer” and decided to harass the Hessians.  They fired a few shots and then went back to celebrating Christmas.   But because of this, Washington was able to enjoy complete surprise.

God has been on our side. 

Prior to the 2024 election, many were dejected and in a funk over politics.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

How wonderfully things have changed in less than a year. 

Winston Churchill gave what may be the greatest college commencement speech.  It was only nine words.  “Never give up.  NEVER GIVE UP.  NEVER GIVE UP!”

SCOPE did not give up.  We remembered that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  (If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle.) 

The battle to preserve our constitutional rights did not end with Trump’s election.  The Left immediately counterattacked.

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

Sunshine soldiers and summer patriots will find other excuses to occupy their time and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism.  Is our current situation less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776?  Or Christmas morning 2023?

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.  Our forefathers were willing to pay that price and we need to join with them. Stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family.  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.