DGU’s Return  by Tom Reynolds

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Defensive Gun Use (DGU) “…is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, other people, and/or property against crime or victimization.” 

Gun control advocates avoid discussing DGU’s like Dracula avoids Holy Water, crosses and stakes

Ammoland wrote: “Defensive gun use data matters because it provides context for the broader debate over firearms policy. When only criminal misuse and suicide statistics are highlighted, the full picture of civilian firearm ownership, including its role in deterring or stopping crime, is obscured.”

Politics should not trump science but, unfortunately as seen in the following and the COVID cover up, it too often does just that.

In 2013, the CDC published the following about DGU*: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

SCOPE: Annually, 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms are committed but there are at least 500,000 DGU’s (or more).

The CDC continued: “A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns…are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

SCOPE: Crime victims using a gun in defense have “…found consistently lower injury rates…compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

The CDC published this on its web site: “Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. The report** indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.”

SCOPE: The 60,000 figure comes from the survey of the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) which only counts incidents that make it into media reports or police reports.  (But, how many police and media reports did they find?)   

The CDC continued: “Firearm violence and injuries are a serious public health problem that impact the health and safety of Americans. “

SCOPE: This statement is deceiving as it focuses on crimes and ignores DGU’s, which have a positive effect on public health.

The Reload published this in December 2022***…”Despite initially standing behind the description in the defensive gun use section of its “fast facts” website on gun violence, the CDC backtracked after a previously-undisclosed virtual meeting with the” (gun control) “advocates on September 15th, 2021…The half-hour meeting was conducted over Microsoft Teams, but a transcript of the call either wasn’t kept or wasn’t turned over as part of the FOIA request.”

After this meeting, the CDC scrubbed its website of this DGU information.

Now, under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, the CDC is returning the statistics to its web page.**** The restored language again notes that estimates of defensive gun use vary by study design and cites the range of 60,000 to 2.5 million each year.

In an average year, the United States has about 16,000 non-suicide gun deaths from all sources, legal and illegal.  And murders are overwhelmingly committed by illegal guns and users. 

Without question, lawful possession of a gun by the average citizen is beneficial, not harmful, and the numbers clearly outweigh gun usage by criminals.

* Read "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" at NAP.edu

** Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 

*** https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/

**** About Firearm Injury and Death | Firearm Injury and Death Prevention | CDC

Concealed Carry is back  by Bo Rabarsky Will Republicans deliver for gun owners or kick the can down the road once again! In March of 2017, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (CCRA) was first introduced by North Carolina Congressman Richard Hudson in the 115th Congress. It passed the lower house in December 2017 after being combined with the fix NICS background check improvement bill, but stalled in the Senate without receiving a formal floor vote. In January 2021, the 117th Congress, CCRA was reintroduced with co-sponsor support, but remained in committee and never went any further. In January 2023, with the 118th Congress, CCRA basically had the same results as in previous years. January 2025 in the 119th Congress, CCRA was reintroduced as bill HB38 and in the Senate as SB65.  In the Senate, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it sits.  The House Judiciary Committee presented an amended version and it has been on the list ‘scheduled for action’ since October 2005.  The Constitution should be the foundation of any political party. The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and without the 2nd Amendment, the others wouldn’t exist. Neither of the two New York Senators (Schumer and Gillibrand) have signed on to the bill.  (Not exactly a surprise!) New York State has 7 Republican Congressional Representatives of which three have signed onto this bill. In addition, Nick Langworthy (23rd) and Claudia Tenney (24th) were original co-sponsors and Elise Stefanik (21st) signed on in April 2026. Nicolas LaLota (1st), Andrew Garbarino (2nd), Nicole Malliotakis (11th) and Michael Lawler (17th) are the four Republican representatives that have never signed onto this bill.  Why?  Probably because their districts happen to cover or surround New York City or Long Island. They probably believe that if their constituents saw them as openly supporting gun bills, they would not get re-elected.  They’re representing what they believe their constituents want, but along the way have given up their principles of supporting the Constitution.  Especially in Long Island’s 1st and 2nd Districts which often vote Republican. I would recommend constituents in those four districts remind their representatives that they took an oath to defend the Constitution and demonstrate it by signing on to HB38. As to Schumer and Gillibrand, it might not hurt to remind them that they took a similar oath of office to defend the Constitution and there are legal gun owners in New York who will vote this November for a party that supports 2A.

NYS Congressional Delegates

Microstamping: "Feels good but little practical use"  by Tom Reynolds

One of the favorite approaches of the anti-2A faction is Microstamping. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently sent a letter to Congress about microstamping*.  NIST did not conduct independent research on microstamping but offered a summary of published data from state agencies, academic institutions, forensic science professionals, and advocacy groups.

First, here is NIST’s definition of microstamping: “Microstamping involves using a laser to engrave a unique microscopic identifier (microstamp) onto one or more firearm components, such as the firing pin or breech face.  When fired, the gun imprints this microstamp onto the cartridge case before it is ejected from the firearm…The goal is to allow law enforcement to link expended cartridge cases found at crime scenes to a specific firearm make, model, and serial number through a database, even if the gun itself is not recovered.”

Per the NIST’s letter, here are a “few” shortcomings of microstamping:

“…legibility is inconsistent and that transfer rates vary by firearm (and by) firing pin shape, and the type of ammunition being used;”  

“Microstamps on firing pins can be defaced or obliterated with basic household tools…firing pins naturally wear over time…replacing a firing pin can be part of routine maintenance;”

“…firearms produce residues such as propellant (gunpowder) and primer particles that can accumulate in the microscopic engravings, potentially obscuring the code;”

“The composition and hardness of the primer material also affect legibility…rimfire ammunition is considered more challenging, as the harder material of the cartridge rim causes lower quality impressions and lower durability;”

“The presence of lacquer sealants on some ammunition can degrade the transfer quality;”

“Manufacturer branding on the primer surface of the ammunition may also impact microstamp visibility by obscuring or preventing the code transfer;”

“…microstamping may obscure some of the features used in traditional forensic firearm identification… and could result in less conclusive determinations that lead to more ambiguity in a criminal case;"

“…firing pin motion, such as repeated strikes and drag, during discharge, can significantly impact the readability;”

“…duplication of the code with other vendors" is an issue.

And then there is that issue that never enters most leftists’ minds: what will it cost!

“…the co-inventor of the technology…estimates the cost of implementation at $3 to $10 per firearm when produced in high-volume batches of over 2,500 units…industry representatives argue that introducing microstamping…could raise consumer costs by over $200 per firearm.”

“For the technology to trace a weapon, a secure database must be established to link a unique microstamp code to a firearm make, model, and serial number. The exact cost of a national database is unknown...the NY Combined Ballistic Identification System, a searchable ballistics image database of cartridge cases fired from firearms legally sold in New York; that program cost $30 million over 11 years before being defunded due to limited efficacy.”  (Emphasis added.)

NIST further warns about the pro-microstamping studies: “While microstamping has shown promise in a small number of initial studies…no large-scale independent (blind) studies have been conducted to establish validity and error rates across a wide range of firearm model and ammunition combinations. Furthermore, the studies are limited to subjective evaluations involving a small number of observers, firearms, and firing pins, and rely exclusively on one manufacturer to produce the microstamps on the firing pin. These limitations currently preclude reliable estimates for error rates under real-world conditions.  (Emphasis added.)

Then there is the minor issue of getting criminals to cooperate.

"…criminals do not typically obtain firearms through retail sources, opting instead to acquire firearms through theft, 'off the street/underground market,' or 'from a family member or friend, or as a gift."  Therefore, efforts to trace back to the original purchaser may not lead directly to the perpetrator, limiting their investigative value.”

But if your real agenda is simply to disarm law abiding citizens; “When the state of California implemented its requirement, the number of approved handgun models on the state' s roster dropped by approximately 50% as manufacturers chose not to introduce new, microstamp-compliant models.”

* HouseSSTChairBBabinMicrostamping.pdf

S.C.O.P.E. Inc. Launches MyVoteMattersNYInitiative to Encourage New Yorkers to Make Their Voices Heard in November New Yorkers deserve a state that puts citizens first—protects constitutional rights, restores safety, spends taxpayer dollars responsibly, & makes it affordable to live,work, raise a family, and retire here. “Two hundred and fifty years ago, our nation was founded on the principle that government derives its authority from the people. That principle is just as important today as it was then. Voting is how citizens hold their government accountable and help determine the direction of their communities, their state and their country.” – John Prendergast, Chairman of the Board, S.C.O.P.E. Inc. Through the MyVoteMattersNY.com website, resources are provided to help New Yorkers: Check voter registration status and register to vote; Understand election dates, deadlines and voting options; Learn about key issues; and Compare candidates’ positions and policies. The MyVoteMattersNY initiative will engage citizens through digital communications, social media, community organizations, participating businesses and other grassroots outreach throughout New York. The election this November is about ONE MISSION – PUT NEW YORKERS FIRST and THREE PRIORITIES: RESTORE FREEDOM, RESTORE PROSPERITY, RESTORE NEW YORK. Protect Second Amendment Rights Defend the constitutional right of law abiding citizens to keep & bear arms Repeal bans on common firearms, excessive fees, & laws that undermine due process Safeguard All Constitutional Rights Protect free speech, religious liberty, due process, & election integrity Restore parental rights in education & healthcare decisions Limit Government Overreach Return decision-making over schools & public safety to local communities & parents Roll back state mandates that reduce local control Make Energy Affordable Repeal costly energy mandates driving up utility bills Support reliable, affordable energy, including natural gas Lower Taxes and Cut Waste Slash the tax burden on working families & small businesses End Albany’s wasteful spending & out-of-control budget Create Opportunity Make it easier to start & grow businesses Protect the future of New York’s family farms Put Citizens First Focus public resources on lawful residents & taxpayers End sanctuary policies that strain budgets & public services Build Safer Communities Support law enforcement & ensure violent offenders are held accountable End policies that put violent repeat offenders back on the streets Keep Families in New York Make it more affordable to live, buy a home, raise kids, & retire Create good-paying jobs so young adults don’t have to leave the state “MyVoteMattersNY encourages New Yorkers to exercise one of the most fundamental rights we have—the right to vote. We are not telling people how to vote. We are encouraging them to become informed, understand what is at stake, and make their voices heard.” – John Elwood, President, S.C.O.P.E. Inc.

Excerpts from a recent op-ed by John Lott

Paul Krugman remains one of the left’s most influential voices. In his latest column, he argues that President Trump avoids taking credit for the drop in murders because Trump’s ultimate goal is cruelty rather than public safety. Krugman contends that Trump’s policies have made crime worse than it otherwise would have been. But if Trump’s policies truly reflect “cruelty,” how should we account for the lives they may have saved – particularly the lives of black Americans, who suffer a disproportionate share of murder victimization?

His column illustrates how people on the political left are trying to explain away the truly record-low crime rates under President Trump….

Krugman writes that murders are “approaching lows not seen since the 1960s in a number of big cities.” The national numbers tell an even more remarkable story. Since national recordkeeping began in 1900, the previous record-low murder rate was approximately 4.5 per 100,000 people. The rate stood at about 5.0 per 100,000 in 2024, but fell to just under 4.0 in 2025, and, if the Council on Criminal Justice’s reported 18% decline in murders across the nation’s 30 largest cities during the first half of 2026 reflects the national trend, the U.S. murder rate will fall to roughly 3.25 per 100,000 this year – the lowest rate ever recorded.

Reducing crime is not complicated. Governments reduce crime by increasing the certainty of arrest and conviction, imposing meaningful prison sentences, and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Recent developments have moved in all three directions.

The FBI dramatically increased enforcement in 2025. FBI arrests rose 184% over 2024 levels, while total FBI arrests – including many joint operations with state and local agencies – increased 197%.

Voters also replaced several George Soros-backed prosecutors in jurisdictions such as Los Angeles and San Francisco with district attorneys who prosecute criminals more aggressively and seek tougher sentences. Across the country, President Trump’s U.S. attorneys have likewise pursued violent offenders far more aggressively than their predecessors. In Washington, D.C., for example, the Biden administration’s U.S. attorney declined to prosecute 67% of those arrested. Under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, that figure has fallen to just 4%.

The decline in crime has also coincided with increased immigration enforcement. During the Trump administration, approximately 70% of deported illegal immigrants had either criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Even those without criminal records understand that contact with law enforcement can lead to deportation, giving them a stronger incentive to avoid criminal activity…It isn’t a coincidence that felony violent crime rates soared by a record 59% during the Biden administration; we had a record influx of illegals coming into the country…

More Americans are also carrying concealed handguns for protection. Surveys show that the share of general election voters who carry concealed handguns increased from 24.3% in December 2024 to 30.9% in July 2026. Hispanic and black voters are carrying at substantially higher rates than white voters. Among those who carry all or most of the time, Hispanics and blacks are 2.6 times more likely than whites to do so. That pattern matters because if you are going to reduce violent crime, you must ensure that the most likely victims can defend themselves.

Krugman instead attributes the decline in violent crime to the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan. Yet decades of academic research find that economic factors such as welfare payments, poverty rates, and similar measures explain only a few percentage points of the variation in crime rates. By contrast, studies consistently find that criminal justice variables – including arrest rates, conviction rates, sentence lengths, and the death penalty – account for over half of the variation.

Krugman ultimately argues that “the cruelty is the point” and that punishment serves no public-safety purpose (“Punishment isn’t a means to an end, a way to fight crime; it’s an end in itself”). According to Krugman, Trump cannot acknowledge falling crime because doing so would prevent him from continuing his policy of cruelty and inflicting pain. Whatever one thinks of the administration’s motives, the relevant question is whether its policies have reduced violent crime. If those policies have contributed to the historic decline in murders, then they have also saved lives – including many black lives, since black Americans accounted for almost half of murder victims in 2024

S.C.O.P.E., Inc. Launches MyVoteMattersNY Initiative

Date: August 24, 2026
To: S.C.O.P.E. Members

Subject: S.C.O.P.E., Inc. Launches MyVoteMattersNY Initiative

The S.C.O.P.E., Inc. (SCOPE) Board of Directors is excited to announce the launch of MyVoteMattersNY, our Get Out the Vote (GOTV) initiative for the 2026 New York State Governor’s election.

In 2022, fewer than 378,000 votes decided New York’s gubernatorial election. It was a good reminder that votes matter.

As the official sponsor of MyVoteMattersNY, SCOPE is focused on encouraging more Second Amendment supporters and liberty-minded New Yorkers to vote in the November 3, 2026 election.

A key message centers on one unifying theme—Putting New Yorkers First—and three priorities: Restoring Freedom. Restoring Prosperity. Restoring New York.

A goal is to focus on key issues and facts—not political rhetoric.

The following MyVoteMattersNY resources have been developed to help spread the message:

Website: https://MyVoteMattersNY.com/

Brochure, Poster and 2A Vote Sticker: MyVoteMattersNY.com/Assets

Social Media:

Facebook.com/MyVoteMattersNY

X.com/MyVoteMattersNY

Instagram.com/MyVoteMattersNY

We Need Your Help! With nearly 3,000 SCOPE members across New York, we can reach thousands of voters.

Three ways you can help:

1. Share on Social Media: Follow MyVoteMattersNY on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Like, comment, and share posts to expand our reach.

2. Spread the Word: Forward MyVoteMattersNY emails to family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

Attend community events, discuss the issues and help distribute brochures.

3. Volunteer: Contact your S.C.O.P.E. County Chapter to learn about volunteer opportunities to help educate and mobilize voters.

If you would like to contribute to the MyVoteMattersNY initiative, you can donate here:
https://scopeny2a.org/donate-to-SCOPE

Whether someone is considering voting for the first time, needs a reminder, or wants to better understand what is at stake, our goal is simple: increase informed voter participation. The future is decided by those who show up.

Thank you for your commitment to SCOPE and the MyVoteMattersNY initiative. Together, we will make a difference.

In liberty,
John Elwood
President - S.C.O.P.E. Inc.
and
Jack Prendergast
Chairman of the Board - S.C.O.P.E. Inc.

Engaged In The Business  by Tom Reynolds

As SCOPE has written on several occasions, the anti-2nd Amendment forces in Washington and Albany will pass laws and regulations, basically saying: “If you don’t like it, sue us; if you have thousands of dollars and years of time to devote to the process.”  Here’s a short history of one such effort that was recently defeated, giving us renewed hope as courts are willing to uphold our constitutional rights.  

The Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022 amended the Gun Control Act’s definition of being “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. The prior standard of “principal objective of livelihood and profit” was replaced with a requirement that a person devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms “to predominantly earn a profit” through repetitive purchase and resale.

Trying to use the BSCA as justification, in April 2024, Joe Biden’s ATF issued a Final Rule that expanded who needs a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell guns. The ATF declared that the primary purpose of a sale need not be profit in order to require an FFL; simply advertising or offering a firearm for sale could trigger the FFL licensing mandate.  To privately sell your gun, you have to become an FFL.  The government did not have to prove the seller was a dealer and required an FFL, the seller had to prove he wasn’t a dealer.

Several states and organizations sued (Texas v. ATF.)

In June 2024, United States District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the ATF’s rule.

In April 2026, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice voluntarily dismissed its appeal of that injunction

On June 12, 2026 the court entered final judgment, vacating the rule in its entirety under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule was unlawful.

But the anti-gun bureaucrats in the ATF run deep, even in the Trump administration.  The ATF and DOJ filed a motion asking the judge to modify his ruling, arguing that only certain portions of the rule should be struck down, so the ATF could issue a new ‘Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’ that would revise the definition.   

On August 13, 2026, Judge Kacsmaryk denied the DOJ’s motion to alter or amend his earlier final judgment; the rule remains vacated in its entirety.  The judge wrote “Defendants cannot avoid the force of those Orders by rearranging a few words between the old Rule and the new one.”

The decision restores the statutory limits Congress enacted and reinforces that the ATF may not rewrite federal criminal law through creative regulation.

A few things to note: government bureaucrats twisted a law to fit their personal politics; this case went rather fast, only a little over two years; some states took the lead in this, which eased the private cost of challenging the government.

U S District Court Judges – like Kacsmaryk - are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.  It’s vital that we keep pro 2nd Amendment politicians in place to appoint and approve judges who will honor the Constitution.

Supreme Court and Contracts  by Tom Reynolds

There is much controversy, name calling, misinformation and confusion in the liberal media over the U. S. Supreme Court, because of some recent decisions.  The core issue is actually much simpler to understand than often presented.  Let’s try to simplify things. 

Examples make the points clearer:

Suppose you agreed to buy a house for $100,000 but, at the closing, the seller wanted $105,000 because of inflation between the signing of the contract and the closing.

An “originalist” judge (as are 4 or 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court) believes that contracts mean what the parties understood them to mean when they were created; what the signers intended them to mean.  Since there was no inflation clause in the contract, he’d decide on $100,000 as the selling price. 

Leftist judges believe in a flexible contract, (as do 3 liberal judges on the Supreme Court), where the current social, political and economic consequences are more important than the intentions of the signers.  A contract doesn’t necessarily mean what the signers understood it to mean but can be reinterpreted by judges in the name of “Social Justice”.  Since inflation was not a consideration when the contract was signed, he’d probably rule that $105,000 is the selling price.  (That you only have a $100,000 mortgage is your problem.)  

Another example:

Suppose that in 1950, your grandfather gave $10 million to Syracuse University for an endowment to fund “scholarships for Syracuse University football players”.  The president of Syracuse agreed, in writing, to the terms.

In 2020, Syracuse University used some of the money to fund scholarships for Syracuse University women soccer players.  As the grandchild, you objected and it went to court to be settled.

An “originalist” judge will rule that the contract meant American football as it was understood to mean by your grandfather and Syracuse University.  As laudable as the University’s intentions may or may not be, it is bound by the terms of the contract, as understood by the signers.

Under a federal law, women now must have more access to sports and this change would help the University comply with the social justice aspects of the law; the current university president must deal with changing times and not be handcuffed by a 70 years old agreement.   A leftist judge would rule that current University administrators cannot be constrained as they adjust to current society’s needs (as they and the judge see them, not as your grandfather saw them.) 

If the leftist judge’s rulings became generally accepted, contract law would be meaningless and a basic underpinning of society would be destroyed.

Now, apply that to U S Supreme Court decisions, especially the decisions which say the 2nd Amendment means what it did when signed.

The U S Constitution is a contract.  In 1789, a three-part contract was drawn up between the people of the 13 states, the states themselves and the federal government.  It created the federal government and spelled out what the federal government could and could not do.  All 13 states signed on to it.  When new states joined the union, per the method laid out in the Constitution, they agreed to abide by the Constitution.

Under the United States Constitution, we have the ability to change it through the amendment process.  If enough people believe that society has changed enough to make some part of the Constitution – or all of it – no longer appropriate, we can change it. 

The process is not easy, in order to prevent fads.  Our Declaration of Independence tells us why: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”   (Those Founding Fathers were really smart…and they didn’t even have access to the internet.)

Until amended, the Constitution and its amendments mean what they meant when signed.   Tweak it through amendments, but recognize that its core values are still valid. 

This, of course, ties the hands of the left who want only to be bound by their unbounded ambition.

S.C.O.P.E. 2026 Annual Banquet Palmyra VFW Post 6778 4306 Route 31 · Palmyra · NY 5:00PM - 9:00PM

The evening will be filled with good food, games, silent auctions, raffles, and engaging conversation. The Master of Ceremonies will be Mr. Bob Lonsberry, who did a great job last year. We encourage you to join us for this informative and enjoyable evening and hope to see you there! Given this is an election year, it is important that as many people as possible get out to hear what the candidates have to say.

TICKETS ON SALE NOW

MAIL IN TICKET ORDER FORM  * All banquet information will be in the upcoming July/Aug Firing Lines * You have until August 21st to place an ad in the Banquet program

Democrats Come Out-of-the-Gun-Closet  by Tom Reynolds

For years, it’s been fairly obvious that the leadership of the Democrat Party had the ultimate goal of either repealing or neutering the 2nd Amendment.  But few have ever come out and directly said that.  Now, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who seem to have taken over the Democrat Party, are more open and up front about it.  They have proposed a constitutional amendment*.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The manufacturing, transportation or importation in or into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of pump-action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within ten years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

DSA declared, “The Second Amendment is a Threat to us All” and then ‘generously’ dictated what would be acceptable: “…you can have a gun, provided it is manually loaded. That means one bullet loaded in the gun, by hand, at a time. We think the compromise should satisfy amateur and hobbyist gun-owning constituencies. (Oh really!)  Hunters, sport-shooters and private individuals will still retain their right to access enough firepower to pursue their hobbies or to protect themselves.  (“Protect themselves?”  What happens if two people break into my house?  Or if the criminal breaks the law by having a weapon with more than one bullet in it?)

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) documents: “[I]n 2018, the DSA explicitly called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, stating… the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to remove guns from society.”  (What is really being said is that it will: …dramatically reduce acts of violence by legal gun owners.  Unfortunately, they can’t make the same statement about illegal gun owners who, by an amazing coincidence, commit most of the violence.)

DSA has had several successful candidates in Democrat primaries and such illustrious Democrat leaders as Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are turning themselves into pretzels trying not to explain where they stand on DSA efforts.

And before you brush DSA off as just a passing fancy, remember that A O-C got her start by winning a primary-  and she is still with us.  And now, some polls have her as the leading Democrat presidential candidate in 2028.  (You probably thought the Democrats could not have had a less qualified candidate than Kamala Harris, but the Democrats said: “Hold my beer...”)

* The Second Amendment is a Threat to us All - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)