Another way to Infringe

                                                By Bohdan Rabarsky and Tom Reynolds

Governor Hochul recently signed into law bill S1985A / A544B sponsored by Democrat Senator Peter Harckham and passed along party line votes in both houses. Similar bills had been sponsored in previous sessions: in 2021/2022 (S5026 / A5455); and 2023/2024 (S2102 / A2413). Neither time did it make it out of committee, but this year was their magic number.

The new law states that, in some cases, the police “may” take possession of the weapon but in other cases the police “shall” take custody of firearms when responding to reports of family or domestic violence.  Before the law was enacted, police officers under the ‘Safe Homes Act of 2020’ had the option of removing firearms that are in plain sight or are discovered during a consensual or lawful search.

(Note:  The dictionary defines shall as: “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.”   It defines may as “used to indicate possibility or probability.” The 2nd Amendment says “…shall not be infringed” it does not say “may not be infringed.”)

Under this new law, there is no need for an ERPO (extreme risk protection order) or a judge’s court order, as long as the weapon is in plain sight or is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search for the police to take the weapon.

Firearms that can be taken include: “rifle, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, disguised gun, imitation weapon, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder rifle, black powder shotgun, or muzzle-loading firearm.”  (Note: Imitation weapon?  A toy can be seized?)

The law also states: An officer who takes custody of any weapon pursuant to this paragraph shall also take custody of any license to carry, possess, repair, and dispose of such weapon issued to the person arrested or suspected of such family offense.

Is all this unconstitutional seizure?

The 4th Amendment to our Constitution says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Constitution.laws.com says: The Fourth Amendment guards against the government’s ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a “reasonable exception of privacy.”

The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a person’s property can be inspected.

The individual’s property may be searched and seized without a warrant given the presence of certain circumstances, if: The individual is on parole or in a tax hearing; faces deportation; the evidence is seized from a common carrier; the evidence is collected by U.S. customs agents; the evidence is seized by probation officers; the evidence is seized outside of the United States; or probable cause is evident.  (Note: none of these circumstances seem to apply to this new law.)

Far left Cornell’s Legal Information Institute opens a door to seizure when it writes the following about the 4^th Amendment:

In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless…there is probable cause to search, and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search.

Exigent circumstances exist in a situation where people are in imminent danger...

…warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. 

SCOPE and other 2nd Amendment defenders are on constant alert for proposed or new laws that threaten 2A.  A favorite tactic for gun grabbers is to hide their work behind a safety concern -when it suits their purposes.  Potential domestic violence is a safety concern but the left uses it to open the door for future constitutional infringements under the façade of safety.  The pressure in these situations is to err on the side of the accuser and if the 2nd Amendment is infringed in the process…the attitude is ‘bummer’.  

The law also states that after one hundred twenty hours have passed (5 days) and if none of the following are in place (an order of protection; an extreme risk protection order; other court order prohibiting the owner from possessing such weapons; no court order is involved), “…the  court or, if no court is involved, licensing authority or  custodian of the weapon shall direct return of a  weapon…and/or such  license  taken  into  custody  pursuant  to  this section.”

This would seem to give the gun owner a path to have their guns returned.  But this is New York State where many public officials feel free to work around or ignore even U. S. Supreme Court orders.  What if the custodian of the weapon delays / refuses to return the weapon, even though there was no legal reason to seize the weapons? The gun owner could be looking at months or years instead of 120 hours to get their guns back.  And count on thousands of dollars of legal costs to recover the weapons (and don’t forget the license - you won’t be able to buy a replacement).  The ‘custodian’ uses taxpayer dollars to keep citizens from their weapons and feels free to do this since they are almost certainly free from personal repercussions. 

Link to the actual bill: NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A544B

Celebrating 60 Years of SCOPE  by Senator Pam Helming

Representing Livingston, Ontario and Wayne Counties and the Monroe County towns of Chili, Mendon, Riga, Rush, and Wheatland

There was something truly special about SCOPE’s 60th Anniversary Banquet. You could feel the pride in the room and the unshakable commitment to freedom. For six decades, this organization has stood on the front lines defending the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers.

It was a privilege to welcome hundreds of incredible patriots to the 54th Senate District, including President John Elwood, Chairman of the Board John Prendergast, Treasurer Tom Reynolds, and Secretary Gary Zielinski. Their leadership, along with your membership in SCOPE, continues to inspire all who value liberty.

That evening, as I stood at the podium, I saw a room packed with people who love this country. People who are proud to be Americans. And it was not lost on me that the event was held at the Palmyra VFW, an active post dedicated to our area veterans and their families.  By supporting our VFW, you were also supporting our Veterans.  As the State Senator for this area, and a member of a military family, I want you to know that meant a great deal to many of us.  

Next year, our nation will mark 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Our founders gave us the framework that made the United States the greatest nation in history. Preserving that legacy is both our right and our duty.

Here in New York, our freedoms are under constant attack.  The majority party in Albany is attempting to control everything; from how we can heat our homes and prepare our food, to what type of vehicles and school buses we can drive, to how we can protect and defend our families.  It's up to all of us to push back on these misguided policies.  The best way to do this is by voting.  Whether it's voting in local elections this year or statewide elections next year, we have to let our family and friends know the importance of choosing representatives with the values that closely align with our own.  The consequences of not showing up at the polls can be dire.... just look at the situation in NYC. 

At the end of the evening, I left the banquet knowing that SCOPE members will continue to rise to the challenge. That each and every one of you will continue your work to preserve and protect our freedoms. For that, I am hopeful and forever grateful.

N Y City Mayor Ratings

SCOPE rates political candidates on 2nd Amendment issues, only.  Since the NY City mayoral race involves three candidates, only one of which is well known to gun owners, we will add our ratings on where they stand on 2A issues.

Gun control is not a hot button issue in New York City.  A majority of NY City residents support gun control laws simply because New York City is a liberal city and liberals demonstrate knee jerk support for gun control laws, not because they know anything of the details. 

Andrew Cuomo  (F-)

Cuomo needs little explanation.  As the former governor and ‘father of the SAFE Act,’ Cuomo is well known to New York gun owners. Under a “Message of Necessity,” he had the SAFE Act signed into law, without the normal safeguards against such emotional actions.

Unbiased observers see the SAFE Act not as a meaningful deterrent to crime but as “political theater” intended to energize the governor’s liberal base at home and attract a national audience for his (then) national political ambitions.

On August 29,2018 Cuomo proudly said, “We passed the toughest gun control law in the United States of America, the SAFE Act."

Curtis Sliwa (D)

Sliwa funded “Guardian Angels” in 1979 due to NYC's rising crime.  He hasn’t said much, directly, about gun control but some of his comments are educational.

In October 2021, Sliwa said, “I choose not to carry a gun and I'm a victim of violent crime. Shot five times on the orders of the Gottis to the Gambinos; hollow point bullets. I was offered a carry permit by the NYPD; I said no. You want to go into the inner city, where most of these gang shootings occur by young males, and you're strapped, and then you're here to tell them they shouldn't be?”

At least he has a non-political reason, but then he said on October 6th of this year, “I’ve never had security. But both I and my wife were subject of direct threats, and so over the weekend I had armed security with me for the first time…I never had (previously) armed security.”

Sliwa sounds like almost every gun control advocate; they believe in “armed security for me but not for thee.”  Have you ever heard a politician ask for unarmed security?

Zohran Mamdani (F-)

On May 24, 2022 Mamdani said, “We need to ban all guns.”

On July 30, 2025 he said, “I echo the call from Governor Hochul for a nationwide ban on assault rifles." 

Mamdani’s track record in the New York State Assembly reveals a legislative history deeply antagonistic to the Second Amendment. According to VoteSmart.org, he has voted in favor of several measures that infringe on lawful gun ownership:

• Mandating gun stores post warnings about selling firearms

• Restricting marketing practices of firearm manufacturers

• Requiring handgun license applicants to turn over their social media history

• Expanding New York’s “red flag” law to allow more people to petition for confiscation of firearms

• Supporting a ban on private ownership of bulletproof vests.

In summary:

Cuomo has shown he is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment but he has stopped short of an outright ban on all guns. 

Unlike his two opponents, Sliwa does not have a history of antagonism to the 2nd Amendment so he might not energetically try to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of New Yorkers.

Mamdani is embracing an outright ban and, if his rhetoric is to be believed, he may attempt to enforce it citywide.  Mamdani is a Democratic Socialists (the polite word for communist) and communist leaders have a history of the outright banning of guns.

G F Z’s  by Bohdan Rabarsky

Last month another horrific shooting occurred, yet again in a “Gun Free Zone (GFZ).”  American Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on the grounds of Utah Valley University. GFZ’s include all schools, at both the local or state levels, as well as any property within 1,000 feet of a GFZ.

Two months ago, another horrific tragedy occurred in a GFZ, this time at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis Minnesota. The shooter was of legal age and purchased his weapons legally. The weapons used weren’t automatic weapons, assault weapons or weapons of war, but a shotgun, a semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle. While the crime scene was still active, Minnesota Democrats were out in full force calling for “sensible” gun control, bans on assault weapons and weapons of war. Calls were made for Congress to act and blame was laid at the feet of Republicans for doing nothing.    

If the Democrat leadership can’t control the narrative, they lose the upper hand in the gun control battle.  They always focus on the type of weapon, instead of focusing on both the shooter and the “Gun Free Zone”.  In fact, in almost all cases, GFZ’s are absent from the discussions.

One of the school shootings that captured national attention was the April 20th 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, where so-called assault weapons were used. Though the primary attack was supposed to be made with bombs, they didn’t detonate, so the firearms were the secondary method of attack. Columbine had one (SRO) School Resource Officer.

Interestingly, five years before the Columbine shooting, Congress had passed a Federal Assault Weapons Ban as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, but it didn’t seem to deter the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  

The original Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in U.S. v Lopez. So, in 1995, Congress amended the GFSZA to apply only to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce, which is just about all firearms. This reinstated the gun free zone, which also didn’t deter Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  

Democrats keep blaming the NRA’s lobbying influence over Republicans, but when Democrats have had their chance to make changes, they did nothing. In the 117th Congress, President Biden had control of both houses and did nothing. In the 118th Congress, Democrats controlled the upper chamber, yet they also did nothing.

A handful of states allow either public or private schools to have armed teachers. Some states passed these laws after experiencing a mass school shooting. For example: Florida allowed armed teachers after the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting; Texas allowed armed teachers after the 2022 shooting in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.  

If Congress was serious about ending school shootings, protecting the most vulnerable amongst us and allowing teachers the ability to teach in a safe environment, here are a few things I believe they should allow:

1.      Mandatory metal detector at a single-entry point of the school.

2.     Plain clothes armed school resource officers in every school.

3.      Use retired law enforcement & military personnel as SROs in school; they’re already trained in the use of firearms.

4.      Offer certified and trained teachers the ability to carry conceal, with firearms being easily accessible to only the teacher within the classroom in the event of an attack.

If legislators are serious about stopping shootings, they will stop obsessing on the firearm and shift their focus to a real problem, GFZ’s.

Don Lemon Speaks  by Tom  Reynolds

Don Lemon appeared on “The Left Hook with Wajahat Ali,” and said, “If you believe in the Second Amendment, if you believe in the Constitution, Black people, Brown people of all stripes, whether you’re an Indian American or a Mexican American or whoever you are, go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally. Get a license to carry legally.”

Uber liberal Don Lemon is encouraging people to get licensed and buy a gun!  Wow, can’t disagree with him – for the first and only time.  Of course, he’s referring to only black and brown people and not all those other skin colors covered by a colorblind 2nd Amendment.

This is the same Lemon who spent years decrying the "culture of violence" associated with firearms and he is now championing the 2nd Amendment that he once dismissed as a relic of white privilege.  How can it be white privilege if black and brown people can use it? 

What happened?  Did a poltergeist take over his body? 

The rest of Lemon’s quote tells us more.

“Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”

Whoa!  Lemon is saying the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from government overreach!  Next thing, he’ll be quoting the NRA.

His statements are also confusing.  He mentions citizens but seems to be referring to illegal aliens, who are not citizens.  No one is knocking on Indian American citizens and Mexican American citizen’s doors and taking them away without due process.  Does he want illegal aliens to get a gun?  (Tren de Aqua is way ahead of him.)  

As usual, the most ardent gun grabbers know nothing about the facts – or is Lemon intentionally misleading people?  It appears that Lemon is mixing very different circumstances together in order create sympathy for illegal aliens in the U S A.  Here is the actual situation on illegal alien gun possession:

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) makes it illegal for specific non-citizens to possess or receive firearms or ammunition.  Specifically:

Individuals unlawfully present in the United States, such as those who entered without inspection, overstayed visas, or otherwise lack legal status.

Unauthorized presence alone disqualifies an individual from firearm ownership. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Huitron-Guizar, ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend to undocumented immigrants.

A conviction can result in up to 10 years in federal prison under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8). If the violation is connected to other criminal conduct, sentencing enhancements can extend the prison term.  Additional charges may apply in cases involving false statements on firearm applications, which is a separate federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and carries up to five years in prison.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C), any non-citizen convicted of a firearms offense is subject to deportation. Federal prosecutors may pursue charges even if the firearm was not used in a crime.  A single conviction can trigger removal proceedings. Even without a conviction, a mere charge can prompt U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to initiate removal proceedings based on unlawful presence or a visa violation.

Immigration judges consider firearm-related conduct when determining bond eligibility, making it difficult for illegal aliens to avoid detention or removal. Prosecutors argue that defendants without lawful status pose a flight risk, making it difficult for non-citizens charged with firearm violations to secure release while awaiting trial.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE enforce these laws. 

After writing all this, I suddenly realized that this was Don Lemon talking.  Who cares what Don Lemon says!

School Safety  by Jess Nassar

I teach at the New York State School for the Deaf located in Rome, New York. After fourteen years of teaching, something is now troubling me. As I have gotten older and wiser, I have become concerned about the lack of security in our building. Safety should never cross my mind while teaching, but now it does.  Times are changing for the worse. All schools should be protecting both students and staff.

If the school can’t protect us and I am not allowed to do so on my own, what recourse do I have? I reported my concerns to my union representative and I am hoping they will put safety first. Without safety I cannot educate.

After the latest shooting in Minnesota, where the gun person admitted they were targeting children in a ‘gun free zone’, it really made me think about the abundance of mindless hate in this world.  At my school, students are Deaf and obviously are not going to hear the gun shots. These students and staff need extra protection because they are even more vulnerable than the general education population.

Metal detectors and an armed guard should be present in all schools regardless if they are public or state run, like mine. 

Recently, I went to my local county building to help my husband sign up for a pistol permit and that place is guarded like it’s the White House. All measures to protect our county employees are in place, yet we don't do the same for our children? Since they don’t let the teachers carry their own weapons to protect themselves - and most importantly our youth - every school should have metal detectors and armed guards. No exceptions.

It is always better to be safe than sorry.

A machinegun (an automatic) expels multiple rounds with a single function of a trigger.

In a Forced Reset Trigger (FRT), the bolt forces the trigger to reset, allowing the shooter to take quicker follow-up shots.  An FRT only fires a single round with each function of the trigger.

Earlier this year, Ammoland reported that the ATF and DOJ entered into an agreement in National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland with the government admitting that FRTs are not machine guns (automatics).  The government then decided to drop all other lawsuits across the country.

The federal government is dropping its FRT cases.  End of story.  Right?

Not in deep Democrat areas like Washington D.C.

Someone made an anonymous tip to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) reporting that a D.C. resident had an FRT.

An MPD Investigator applied for and received a search warrant from a D.C. Superior Court Judge by stating that an FRT can convert a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm.  On October 8, the MPD conducted a raid on the DC resident’s apartment where they found several FRTs.  After obtaining an additional search warrant, MPD recovered multiple firearms, a 3D printer, filament, five SD cards, four USB drives, two laptops, three electronic storage banks, and one cell phone.

An MPD Investigator and ATF Special Agent responded to the scene and interviewed the DC resident. According to the police report, the man admitted to knowing “what FRTs are and how they are capable of turning a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm.”

MPD arrested the D.C. resident for Possession of a Machine Gun (and Pistol License Violation) even though the DOJ and the ATF have previously agreed that an FRT is not a machine gun, making them legal under federal gun laws.  Possessing an automatic manufactured after 1986 is a crime.  All FRT’s were made after 1986 but an FRT does not make a semi-automatic into a machine gun.

Deep blue / far left areas are so caught up in their determination to do away with all civilian gun ownership that they ignore the federal government (DOJ and ATF).  We have here a confrontation between the feds, (which say FRT’s are not automatics) and D.C, (which says FRT’s are automatics.)  D.C. may have the lead in this case but deep blue states like California and New York will not be far behind.

Hawaii Sensitive Places

Hawaii has a law banning guns in certain "sensitive locations."  The law reads (emphasis added):

[§134-9.5]  

(a)  A person carrying a firearm pursuant to a license issued under section 134-9 shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property…

(b)  For purposes of this section, express authorization to carry or possess a firearm on private property shall be signified by:

                          (1)  Unambiguous written or verbal authorization; or

(2)  The posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building or on the premises…indicating that carrying or possessing a firearm is authorized.

Sounds a lot like New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The law was initially blocked by a district court judge.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the most far-left, most reversed circuit court in the United States) reversed the judge and upheld the law, in 2024. In his dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law "effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians." 

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a court case challenging the private property part of this; Wolford v. Lopez.  (Lopez is Hawaii’s Attorney General and will defend the law.)  No date has been set for oral arguments.

Wolford et al and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition say that the case violates the 2022 SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

…the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier, and that

the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen’s text, history and tradition test* in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing:

"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise…Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."

"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms."

Hawaii argued in a brief that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right:

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations…there is no right to engage in speech or carry firearms on someone else’s property without her consent."

* Under Bruen’s text, history and tradition test:

The first step is to look at the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. The courts have held that “the people” are at least Americans who have reached the age of majority, which in the United States is 18 years of age. Handguns are bearable arms, so the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ conduct.

The second step puts the burden on the state. It must show that a law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation by using historical analogues.

The question that is argued is whether historical analogues must come from founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. Others argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which, they hope, allows them to try and use ‘Jim Crow Era’ laws restricting gun ownership of blacks.’

In Israel, south of Jerusalem, an Israeli Defense Force reservist (IDFer) was driving when he heard the sound of a crash behind him.  He looked in the mirror and saw a vehicle had driven into a bus stop.  He stopped his car and quickly exited and saw wounded people with blood on them. Then, he saw a man get out of the offending vehicle but he did not know if this was an attacker or an accident victim.  When someone shouted, ‘He has a knife,’ the IDFer drew his concealed pistol, chambered a round, held it in two hands at eye-level, and confronted the terrorist.  The IDFer shouted for the attacker to stop, in Arabic.  Instead, the attacker began what was described by the IDFer as “a frenzied run toward me.” The IDFer fired two shots at the attacker’s legs and the IDFer believes at least one of them hit.  But the attacker kept running so, while backpedaling, the IDFer shot him in the center of mass, and the attacker fell.

The IDFer added, “In my opinion, he was drugged. I shouted at him, and he continued advancing toward me. I shot him, and he fell. The word 'neutralized' is a euphemism; it has no place in this context. Terrorists must be killed.”

Perhaps the IDFer was initially following Joe Biden’s advice to shoot assailants, “in the leg instead of the heart.”  Or, at one time, Israelis were instructed to “shoot at the feet first.” Whichever the case, the IDFer was unwisely adhering to bad advice.

When one’s life is directly and imminently threatened, one needs to stop the threatening individual as quickly as possible. Most would agree that the best way to stop an individual is to inflict lethal wounds, preferably multiple lethal wounds!  And the best way to do that is shooting ‘center mass.’

A favorite feature of old westerns was for the ‘good guy’ to shoot the gun out of the hand of the ‘bad guy’, usually without wounding the ‘bad guy,’ just disarming him.  Unless you have a death wish, don’t try that in real life.

And even more menacing to your continued good health is to “shoot to wound.”  Attempting to use your pistol to inflict wounds intended to be “non-fatal” endangers your own life and needlessly prolongs the incident.

When someone gets a gun for protection, they need to realize that stopping a threatening individual almost always involves inflicting grievous wounds that will likely end the attacker’s life.  An unpleasant but necessary fact, to be considered. Before an incident happens, gun owners need to think about when to use lethal force.  It should be used as a last resort. 

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

SCOPE had previously reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced the formation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.” Bondi noted, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated like a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In the Task Force’s first high-profile move, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate delaying tactics by the Sheriff’s Department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Some quotes from the complaint:

“…Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two…This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

“The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

“As of May 2025, approximately 2,768 applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.”

“…Defendants have constructed an administrative labyrinth designed to frustrate and ultimately deny this fundamental right to virtually all who seek to exercise it.”

It appears that Bondi’s DOJ is serious in defending 2A rights. 

As SCOPE previously wrote, the significance of this is that citizens will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars suing the LA Sheriff’s office but, instead, we have the federal government using its resources to right an obvious wrong about a fundamental right.

Unfortunately, similar practices in Democrat run states make this a huge problem and will require huge resources to counteract these unconstitutional practices.