Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Hunters, notoriously, don’t vote.  One study said that, nationwide, only between 30% and 50% of hunters vote.

Why don’t they get involved since Democrats have been coming after 2nd Amendment gun rights in increasingly radical fashion? 

One answer is that hunters feel the Democrats are not coming after their guns.  That now needs to be amended to say the Democrats are not coming after their guns, YET.

Connecticut State attorneys are arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hunting rifles, especially semi-automatic ones, are not protected by the Constitution.

Background

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera filed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy; the law bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.”  (NAGR v Lamont)  NAGR is suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their assault weapon and magazine ban as these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

NAGR sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of these laws.  On August 3rd, 2023, a United States District Judge ruled against NAGR and the judge would not install a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of these laws.

The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on October 16th.

At the hearing, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office raised the stakes by contending that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles.  Connecticut’s AG contends that Connecticut has the authority to regulate firearms that are not typically used for self-defense, suggesting that hunting rifles do not fall under this category.

Connecticut referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.

NAGR argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is neither dangerous nor unusual and should be protected. NAGR pointed out that, despite political rhetoric, AR-15s are rarely used in mass shootings, with over 75% of such incidents involving handguns. He criticized Connecticut’s laws as politically motivated rather than based on crime reduction.

The current court action only involves the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law while the actual suit over the law is being heard.  Since Connecticut has raised the threat that the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting rifles, it is likely that this will be a big issue when the actual suit against the laws is heard and Connecticut continues to defend its strict gun regulations. 

A circuit-level victory here will establish legal precedent throughout the entire 2nd Circuit which includes New York and Vermont.

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut but their constitutional protection is now in question.

Democrat leaders are always looking for any opportunity to further extend their war on guns, no matter how slight.  Hunters might want to reconsider not voting because Democrats aren’t coming for their guns.  As seen in Connecticut, it’s not IF but WHEN they are coming.

Hitler, Fascists and NAZIs

Lately, the terms Hitler, Nazi and Fascist have been thrown around – a lot – by Kamala Harris and the Democrats when referring to Donald Trump or the MAGA movement. 

The NAZI’s were Fascists and Adolf Hitler was their leader.  Along with Italy’s Fascists and Japan, they plunged the world into a war where most estimates place the total number of deaths at around 70-85 million people. Approximately 17 million of these deaths were due to crimes against humanity carried out by the Nazi regime in Europe. 

The Nazis, Fascists and Hitler were evil people.  Being politically associated with Hitler, NAZI’s and Fascism is a genuine negative.

Since Democrats are known for accusing others of doing things the Democrats are already doing, let’s examine this a little closer.

Nazi is actually an acronym.  It stands for National Socialist German Workers Party.  The NAZI’s self-identified as Socialists and evolved into Fascists. 

Who is associated with Socialism: Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans?  (Hint: Bernie Sanders ran for the Democrat nomination for President by self-identifying as a “Democrat -Socialist.”)

How about Gun Control?

Under a 1928, law (prior to Hitler’s rise to power), Germany had a strict firearm-licensing scheme. Under Hitler, in 1938, the NAZI’s relaxed certain gun registration laws for the benefit of "law-abiding German citizens" – i.e. NAZI Party members.  Laws were also passed banning gun ownership by "unreliable persons” such as enemies of the “National Socialist State”, Jews, Communists, etc.

Hitler and the NAZI’s believed in gun ownership for the politically connected but not for those they disfavored. 

Who is currently protected by security armed with guns but does not want the non-politically connected citizen to have a gun:  Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans?

Hint: Trump speaks at NRA conventions. 

Hint: In 2008, Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in District of Columbia v. Heller.  The brief urged the Court to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban, endorsing the view that a total handgun ban does not violate the Second Amendment.  Additionally, Harris argued that the Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a firearm.

In early 1933, at Chancellor Hitler's urging, the Reichstag Fire Decree was signed into law; it suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. It was classed as an emergency measure to protect public safety and order.  

A month later, the Enabling Act gave Hitler's cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag (Parliament). With certain exceptions, these laws could deviate from the German constitution.

Hitler's government had become a de facto legal dictatorship.

Within three months the NAZI’s main opposition party had been declared illegal and other parties had been intimidated into disbanding. In July, the Nazi Party was declared the only legal political party in Germany.

Hitler and the NAZI’s weaponized the government against their political foes. 

Trump was president for four years and did not use the power of the government against his political enemies, such as Hillary Clinton and others who participated in the Russia Hoax.  He even respected the law and submitted to some dubious legal proceedings against him.

The Harris / Biden administration has weaponized the government against Trump and anyone who supports him.  In addition, they have illegally let 10 million aliens into the country with the goal of making them American citizens and, thus, give the Democrats a huge voting advantage.  And don’t forget Chuck Schumer threatening the Supreme Court for ruling in a way he did not like and    Harris / Biden’s plan to pack the Supreme Court.

So, who is weaponizing the government like Hitler did?

Hitler and the NAZI’s hate for the Jewish people was demonstrated by the infamous Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were murdered.  Huge numbers of Jewish victims died in Concentration Camps and were executed by killing squads that followed the German army.

As president, Trump fulfilled the longstanding promise of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He recognized Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights. He launched a strike killing the Iranian Quds Force terrorist commander Qassem Soleimani. He pulled out of the flawed Obama-administration nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposed strict economic sanctions. He helped negotiate the unprecedented Abraham Accords, bringing peace between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors: Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, and he’s spoken fondly about having Jewish grandchildren.

As for Harris - Benjamin Netanyahu received a bipartisan invitation to give a speech before Congress. As Vice President, Harris should have officiated over the speech but, instead, went to a sorority event.  Harris chose to side with the fifty-plus Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu or called him vile names like a “war criminal.” 

Harris eventually met with Netanyahu.  She went on with a rant of sympathy for the Palestinian people about their “suffering,” but ignored Israel’s suffering under ceaseless and indiscriminate terror attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and Iran, and never mentioned the Israeli civilians killed on October 7th.

Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish. 

Her step daughter, Ella, has been publicly raising money for UNRWA.  Members of UNRWA have been linked to Hamas and the October 7th attacks.  Benjamin Netanyahu said about UNRWA: it is "perforated with Hamas…In UNRWA schools they've been teaching the doctrines of extermination for Israel - the doctrines of terrorism, glorifying terrorism, lauding terrorism."

If Trump is Hitler, he has a very strange way of going about it.

Harris, on the other hand…

Disarming a Country

In Mark Smith’s book  Israel Disarmed: What the October 7 attack teaches Americans about the right to bear arms, he gives us some examples which should be a wake up call in the debate over 2nd Amendment protected rights.

According to Smith, only about 1.5% of the Israeli population were allowed to own firearms before October 7, 2023.  (John Lott says it is 3%.)  The political belief in Israel was that they could count on their police force and their military to protect them. 

However, in Smith’s book he highlights the contrast between two Israeli kibbutz. 

In the October 7th attacks, one Israeli kibbutz had no defensive firearms and about 750 residents.  60 residents were killed, 17 were taken as hostages.

Another Israeli kibbutz had about 1500 residents which included about a dozen men with firearms. Not one resident of the second kibbutz was killed as the roughly dozen armed defenders held off the Jihadis.

In addition, on October 7th, 364 people were killed and 40 hostages were taken at the Supernova Sukkot Gathering, an open-air music festival.  17 police officers were killed and Smith does not know if the police officers were armed.  The festival was a “gun free zone.”

A few days after the attack, Israel’s Second Amendment-lacking citizenry was granted new ‘permissions’.  Israel’s Minister of National Security went on “X” and wrote: “Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation, in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves.”

Basically, regulations were loosened - not lifted - in order for more Israelis to arm themselves.  Included in that ‘loosened’ regulations was that citizens were allowed to purchase 100 bullets (the former limit was 50).  

On October 23^rd 2023, SCOPE wrote about firearm regulations in Israel.  It’s worth rereading.  Here is the link.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Lessons From Israel

Israel learned the hard way that when the police are minutes or hours away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away.

Smith also uses the example that on November 13th, 2015, a mass shooting and hostage taking took place in Paris at the Bataclan Theatre.  A concert was attended by 1,500 people. The attackers killed 90 and another 416 people were injured. Seven of the attackers were also killed.   Eight police officers who were at the Bataclan off-duty were all unarmed.

France has very restrictive gun laws in spite of a national history of gun ownership.  

And speaking of France’s history, Wikipedia has this to say: “The Farcy law (Loi Farcy) of 1885…liberalized gun ownership and production. This regime continued until 1939, when weapons were divided into categories and ownership of military caliber weapons was strictly regulated, almost prohibited.”

1939!  Great timing to restrict military caliber weapons!  The Nazi’s invaded France in May of 1940 and it took just over six weeks for France to surrender.  (Wikipedia failed to mention that little tidbit!)

It’s worth noting that every school shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

It’s good to remember these lessons when voting.

Full Employment for Lawyers

On the back of your November ballot is Proposition 1, which is a proposed amendment to the NY State Constitution.  It requires a yes vote to pass it and a no vote to reject it.

First, what does Proposition 1 actually say?   This is the wording on the ballot:

“This proposal amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution. Section 11 now protects against unequal treatment based on race, color, creed, and religion. The proposal will amend the act to also protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive healthcare and autonomy.  The amendment allows laws to prevent or undo past discrimination.”

Got it?  Understand what you are voting on?

Below is what the actual wording of the NY Constitution will be if it passes:

(Italicized/bold words are the additions to the Constitution from Proposition 1)

“§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.”

“b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”

Whoa!  Wait a second.  Section ‘b’ does not seem to be addressed by the description on the ballot?  Try reading it again.  Shouldn’t you understand what you are voting to approve and enter into the Constitution?  So, what in hell does Part b mean?  Or for that matter, Part a, too? 

Per their web page: “The Empire Center for Public Policy, Inc. (ECPP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank based in Albany, New York.”

On August 16^th, ECPP wrote about their study called: “Ballot Proposal One: A Constitutional Amendment Fraught With Uncertainty.”

ECPP wrote: “Prop One could open many New York civil rights laws—and other laws that may discriminate based on classification—to legal challenges. And those challenges could include irreconcilable differences between classes like religious belief and gender identity.“  (Emphasis added)

ECPP added: “Resolving those cases would make the courts—not the Legislature—the decision-makers on value judgments that determine civil rights policies in New York.”

Then ECPP added: “…Prop One contains vague language that invites legal challenges to existing laws. And it contains no guideposts for the courts in its application. Prop One elevates almost every class of person to a special status and places those different classes of persons and multiple laws into conflict, leaving it up to the judiciary to make up solutions to those conflicts as it goes along.”  (Emphasis added.)

Two thoughts.

Full employment for lawyers!

Religions are a constitutionally protected class that cannot be discriminated against.  But a religion that opposes abortion or the current gender identity movement would be in conflict with those newly constitutionally protected classes.  (Catholic hospitals that refuse to do abortions would, without doubt, be amongst the first challenged under this proposal.)  It would be up to the courts to decide for or against – without much guidance from the NY Constitution.  Welcome to legislation from the bench!

Note: Appeals judges are the final NY State legal authority and they are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature, which means leftists will be appointing…leftists.  Or, to paraphrase Andrew Cuomo, there is no place in NY State for conservatives.

ECPP continues: “Prop One threatens the status quo by adding so many suspect classes—leaving aside the vagueness of some—that applying the test may render many existing laws unconstitutional or pit classes against each other in ways that are unworkable.”  (Such as the previous example of religious liberty versus abortion rights.)

ECPP adds: “Part B of Prop One attempts to address the inherent conflicts in naming so many suspect classes…But it is unclear how that provision can work in practice.”

They know it works in theory so don’t worry about how it works in actual practice.

ECPP adds something that should terrify anyone who believes in 1^st and 2^nd Amendment rights: “Part B also includes permission for the state to discriminate through ‘any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed’ in Prop One.”

You can expect a NY State law to push the edge-of-the-envelope by proposing a law making illegal to speak out against a constitutionally protected right such as gender identity. 

And certainly, some legislator will figure out a way that firearms discriminate against minorities based on high crime rates in minority neighborhoods and propose another anti-2A law.  After all, under Part b, NY State can discriminate against a protected class if it does so in the interest of another protected class that it disfavors.  (And gun rights are certainly a disfavored class In Albany.)

And here is the gun rights kicker, the right to “keep and bear arms” is NOT protected in the NY Constitution, opening the door for anti-2A legislation.  Since we are not even in a constitutionally protected class, feel free to discriminate. 

Music to Kathy Hochul and the anti-2A movement’s ears.

ECPP concludes: “In short, Prop One and its added suspect classes threatens to throw New York civil rights law into chaos.”

“Thus, the amendment may be unworkable unless New York courts devise workarounds to its application. And that means the amendment will place decisions on civil rights policy in the hands of the judiciary and not the Legislature where they belong.”   (Emphasis added.)

By the way, it will potentially put NY State in conflict with the U S Constitution.  But that small matter has never stopped Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature.

I hope this email finds you well and enjoying fall foliage. 

I 'd like to remind you that the election is almost here.  In 11 days, on Tuesday November 5, 2024, election day arrives.  However, early voting begins the day after tomorrow. 

Early voting in New York State runs from Saturday October 26, 2024 through Sunday November 3, 2024.  I encourage you to find out exactly where early voting occurs in your part of New York State because it may not be the same place you normally vote on election day. 
I encourage you to vote early and support the Second Amendment.  

Good Luck!
With All Honor and Respect,
John R. Elwood, SCOPE President

Indianapolis Indiana                           Criminal                                            Non-Criminal                                     Homicides                                        Homicides    2021                          249                                                     22       July 1 2022, Constitutional Carry went into effect 2022                          211                                                     15       2023                          171                                                     45       Could be a coincidence (or not a coincidence) that Criminal Homicides went down when people were better able to defend themselves WITH GUNS. I’m betting on ‘or not a coincidence.’ Pennsylvania Note: In 2021, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Constitutional Carry but Governor Tom Wolfe vetoed it. There are other issues in Pennsylvania which may eventually leak over its northern border into NY. A Pennsylvania law bans 18 to 20-year-old citizens from openly carrying firearms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) claimed that the law violates the U S Constitution because it disarms part of “the people.” In October 2020, the lawsuit, Lara v. Paris, originally filed. At the time, states could rely on the concept of ‘interest balancing’ to defend their laws. As you probably know, these trials take forever to go through the trial and the appeals process. In 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruen. Pennsylvania could no longer use ‘interest balancing’ to defend its law against constitutional scrutiny. The court could only use the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. In January 2024, the Third Circuit found Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutional. In March 2024, an appeal to the 3rd Circuit was denied. In April 2024, Pennsylvania was enjoined from enforcing the law. Pennsylvania appealed to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) On October 15th, SCOTUS vacated the lower court’s decision, and remanded the case back to the Third Circuit for “consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.” This means the law is still alive, for now. Rahimi said that a citizen could be temporarily disarmed if they posed a threat to public safety. Do 18 to 20-year-olds, as a group - and not as individuals - pose an unusually high risk to public safety?  Applying laws to a group instead of an individual is a very risky limb to crawl out on.  However, accusing groups is currently in vogue: white men are accused of being racist just because they are white; MAGA, as a group, are accused of being fascist.    Pennsylvania will probably argue that the human brain isn’t fully developed until age 25, which leads to bad judgement and risky behavior.  But that argument opens the door to a host of related issues involving age restrictions that few would want to get into.     Street Takeovers Street takeovers by protestors / criminals / thugs are in vogue.  Streets are completely shut down, motorists are accosted and police are generally overwhelmed and helpless. Ammoland warns: “When stalled by a violent riot, stationary vehicles are death traps…your only safety lies in motion! So long as you’re moving, escape from criminal violence is possible.” Ammoland did not mention another possible action; be carrying. Should Trump win the election, it will serve as an excuse for these “mostly peaceful takeovers” to increase in numbers.  You have been warned!       On Another Issue

Columbus Versus Indigenous Peoples

The Left wants to eliminate everything they don’t like; such as guns and Columbus Day.  Columbus offends them because he was involved with slavery.  Instead, the Left wants to honor Indigenous Peoples.  It’s appropriate that Democrats want to honor Indigenous Peoples as Indigenous Peoples’ history parallels the Democrat Party’s history of slavery.

Did you know that the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery did not apply to all slaves?  The “Five Civilized Tribes” of the southeast - Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole - also participated in the institution of slavery.  Because these tribes were located outside the sovereignty of the United States, constitutional amendments did not apply to them.  (Kinda like Kathy Hochul, who doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution applies to New York State.)

According to journalist Aliana E. Roberts, by 1800, the “Five Tribes” had developed “plantations that rivaled those of their white neighbors.”  She also notes that the percentage of black slaves in the population was significant.  In 1860:

• Cherokee Nation citizens owned 2,511 slaves (15 percent of their total population),

• Choctaw citizens owned 2,349 slaves (14 percent of their total population), and

• Creek citizens owned 1,532 slaves (10 percent of their total population).

• Chickasaw citizens owned 975 slaves, which amounted to 18 percent of their total population.

These were proportions equivalent to that of white slave owners in Tennessee, a large slaveholding state.

Most other North American tribes also practiced some form of slavery, even before Columbus.  (Wait a minute – Columbus didn’t introduce slavery to America?  If that’s so, could the 1619 Project also be wrong?)

In The Birth of America, William Polk writes: “Indian societies were frequently at war with one another…booty consisted in part of slaves.  Slavery was as common in the New World as among Africans and Europeans. Practices were equally cruel.”

Close to home here in NY State, the Mohawks would eat their captives, which is usually referred to as cannibalism.

A special “shout out” on Indigenous Peoples Day should go to the Aztecs.

The Aztecs had religious festivities at the end of their 20-day months and human sacrifice was an essential feature of these festivities.  (And you thought giving up something for Lent was hard.)

Human sacrifice also was part of the legend around the founding of the Aztec capital city, Tenochtitlan, which was accompanied by the sacrifice and skinning of the daughter of the King Coxcox of Culhuacan.  (By contrast, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton decided on the current site of Washington D.C. over dinner and a bottle of wine.)

Another aspect of Aztec human sacrifice was children who were made to cry before the sacrifice. The tears were thought to wet the earth and thus appease the gods. If a child did not cry, the priests would sometimes tear out the nails of the child to make him or her cry.

The Aztec practice of human sacrifice also served a political purpose.  The Aztecs were small in number compared to the other subjugated tribes and, thus, there was always a danger of an alliance between these tribes against the Aztecs.  To avert this, Aztecs demanded humans as a tribute from the subjugated tribes.  As a result, these tribes would constantly raid each other to procure humans for sacrifice. This minimized or eliminated the chance of an alliance between the tribes.  (Sounds like the current effort to keep the Left in power by dividing people over race and gender issues.)

In 1487, five years before Columbus discovered America, “Templo Mayor” was dedicated in the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation with the lowest estimate at 4,000. 

It is hard to know how many Aztecs died under the sacrificial knife. Many reputable scholars today put the number between 20,000 and 250,000 per year for the whole Aztec Empire.  (Hitler, Mao and Stalin would have been proud of the Aztecs.)

Indigenous People Day would not be complete without mentioning the Incas of Peru.  Although a little less bloodthirsty than Aztecs, the Incas had enslaved other indigenous people along the Andes.

Human sacrifices were practiced by the Incas to ward off danger, famine or an epidemic. The victims were usually children, sometimes men and virgins.  (Apparently, virgins have been sacrificial favorites, everywhere.) 

More recently, archaeologists have discovered a site in northern Peru of mass child sacrifice. About 550 years ago, over 140 children were probably sacrificed on a site known as Huanchaquito-Las Llamas.  Later, the number of sacrificed children’s remains found rose to 269, with the discovery of another nearby site. 

An interesting aspect of the Inca Empire is described in the book “A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru” by Louis Baudin.  (The Incas would make Stalin, Mao and Fidel proud.)  Baudin writes that the regime imposed by the Inca rulers on the indigenous populations they had enslaved was a precursor of Marxist-style socialism.  Private property and individual initiative were prohibited.  Money and commerce did not exist.  Private life was subject to tough state regulation: people had to dress in a similar way; marriage was allowed only following the eugenic laws of the state, to avoid “racial contamination”.  Like any tyrannical system of this type, it was oppressive and didn’t work, so much so that the subjugated indigenous peoples enthusiastically helped the few Spaniards who came to get rid of it.  (Sounds like the Incas deserve the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood award for eugenics.) 

So, the Aztecs and Incas enslaved other indigenous peoples.   Well, at least they weren’t racists.          

It’s lucky for those Indigenous Peoples that they weren’t “White European Heritage Peoples” or the ‘Woke’ would demand that they lose their new holiday because they practiced slavery.  To be fair, just about every people have practiced slavery; European, Asian, African and indigenous American. 

If the holiday had to be renamed, again, the “woke” would demand that it honor someone who did not practice slavery or cannibalism; that, of course, would eliminate just about every race and country in the history of the world. 

But if you wanted to name it for someone who did not practice human sacrifice or cannibalism, Christopher Columbus is available.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is…

SCOPE (and many others) often point out the double standard of the anti-2A’s.  For instance: anti-2Aers want to disarm citizens and make citizens unable to defend themselves while the anti-2Aers enjoy the protection of people with guns.

Kamala Harris has led that effort, which plays well in her home state of California, which is also heavily anti-2A.

Kostas Moros, an attorney representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association, posted this on X: "…California law classifies ALL Glocks as 'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping," (Emphasis added.)

"The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still 'unsafe handguns…We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states).”

Kamala Harris supported the Unsafe Handgun Act.

Guess what gun Harris owns? 

During her 60 Minutes interview, Harris stated that she owns a Glock.

Harris owns an 'unsafe handgun'?

As the former district attorney of San Francisco, which is a law enforcement position, she would have legally been allowed to purchase and own an "unsafe handgun."  But if it is ’unsafe,’ why is law enforcement allowed to use an ‘unsafe’ handgun? 

Harris was attorney general of California in 2013 when the Justice Department authorized the state to institute a 2007 law requiring new models of handguns to be micro-stamped. In 2023, the California legislature passed a law banning the sale of any handgun that isn't "microstamping-enabled".  (Since repealed.)

Is Harris Glock micro-stamped? Even if not the law, doesn’t she still believe in microstamping?

Whether you are pro or anti-abortion, it is interesting to read the reasoning behind some rulings and how they have ‘aged’ when applied to other issues, like defending the 2nd Amendment.

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were the two cases, at the federal level, that allowed abortion.

The plurality in Casey – Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter – believed that the public “should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread — that a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.” (Emphasis added.)

These words are worth repeating: “a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.”

The current majority of the Supreme Court proved that they will defend our 2nd Amendment rights in NYSRPA v Bruen. 

What is the reaction of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and many Democrats?  They wanted to add new members to the Supreme Court, nominated by (anti-2A) Biden, so they would then have a ‘new majority” which could ”by dint of numbers alone expunge their rights.’

It should be noted that Biden and Harris are big defenders of abortion but apparently these two lawyers have not read the reasoning behind these decisions.  Or if they have, they don’t believe the basic rationale should be applied to issues they don’t like.

Kind of like they only believe our 1st and 2nd Amendment protected rights don’t apply to issues they don’ like.

I wonder how they will feel about ‘packing’ the Supreme Court if Trump is elected President?  Would they also do a flip-flop?

Another Anti-2A Group (Ammoland)

Five of the country’s top anti-gun groups launched a new organization comprised of state lawmakers, which will focus on changing state gun laws. Legislators for Safer Communities consists of Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, and March for Our Lives.

Initially, the coalition consists of 171 state lawmakers from 43 states.  (That’s only 4 per state!)

In their words, the group wants to circumvent the “congressional stalemate” on gun-control legislation by focusing on changing state laws.

(Their definition of a ‘stalemate’ is that the 2nd Amendment is still the law of the land.)

Legislators for Safer Communities claims to be independent and nonpartisan, but the six Co-chairs and the twenty-eight Steering Committee members, named on its one-page website…drumroll please…are all Democrats.

Knowing that the group is being led by Democrats, you will not be shocked to learn that the one paragraph description of their purpose echoes as many Democrat talking points as they could squeeze into one paragraph: “a public health issue;” “systemic inequalities”; “equity and justice; etc.”

However, they were unable to link gun control and abortion.

Tanya Schardt, Brady’s senior counsel and senior policy director, said in a press release they want: “to save lives through common sense and evidence-based policies.” 

(You can bet those “evidence-based policies” will be peer reviewed by peers paid by Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, and March for Our Lives.)

There is no contact phone number and only a digital contact form.

It is not listed on GuideStar or other charity navigators.

The site offers no information about the group’s funding, but the five anti-2A groups listed have deep pockets.

While this group will be focusing on laws at the state level, New York shouldn’t be concerned since we couldn’t possibly have any more restrictive laws than we already have.  Could we?  Not possible?  Say it aint so?

Well, just in case it is possible, the best prevention is voting.  Which is satisfying, knowing that you can offset the millions spent on anti-2A efforts simply by voting – at no cost to you.

Public Land Closure

The following is a press release from NSSF concerning the closure of public lands which will take away recreational shooter opportunities.  (Emphasis has been added.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, strongly opposes Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s proposed plan for the Department of the Interior to shutter access to recreational shooting on 1.3 million acres of the Bears Ears National Monument, in Utah. Today’s announcement will needlessly deny recreational target shooters access to the monument for no legally justifiable purpose and will violate federal law.

“Secretary Haaland’s proposed plan to close access to 1.3 million acres for recreational shooting is a violation of federal law,” said Joe Bartozzi, NSSF President and Chief Executive Officer. “Public lands must be made available for all the public to use. Federal law explicitly states that when closures of public lands are necessary, they must be limited in area and duration to achieve a specific stated objective. Secretary Haaland has articulated none of the required criteria, as required by law. The Secretary should rescind or drastically modify this misguided policy and apply the law as intended: to benefit the public.”

The John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act [4], which was signed into law in 2019, sets the criteria upon which the Secretary of the Department of the Interior may close public access to public lands. The law limits the area and duration for when public access to federal lands may be closed. Closures may only occur when a clear and quantifiable objective is identified. Secretary Haaland’s announcement to close 1.3 million acres to Bears Ears National Monument fails to meet these requirements.

The Dingell Act states that federal lands will remain open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting in accordance with applicable law. That is, unless the Secretary establishes that a specific area must be closed for one or more particular reasons, including public safety, administration or compliance with applicable laws. If that is to occur, the Secretary must limit the closure to the smallest area necessary and for the shortest amount of time to achieve the stated purpose.

None of these criteria were met before Secretary Haaland announced that public access will be denied to countless recreational shooters who, since the land is public, own those lands. The announcement will deny access in a manner detrimental to conservation funding. What is most appalling is that this punitive political action is occurring despite the absence of any indication that recreational shooters pose an any viable threat to the monument’s cultural, historic or natural resources.

“NSSF is deeply troubled by this blatant violation of the law to close off access to 1.3 million acres of public land,” Bartozzi added. “This unlawful closure demonstrates that the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary Haaland are openly hostile to the interests of America’s sportsmen and women. This action clearly shows utter disdain for the rule of law. NSSF will protest this proposal and will work with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure future shooting opportunities in the Monument remain available to recreational target shooters.”

NSSF encourages all Americans who enjoy access to public lands to comment on this proposal and to make their voices heard.