Equal Protection  by Bohdan Rabarsky

Politicians have long been the target of criminals wishing to do them harm.  The FEC (Federal Election Commission) has ruled that federal members could use campaign funds for personal security services, as long as they have had credible threats of security lodged against them. Many Democrat lawmakers have taken advantage of this service, since then.  For example, some of the heaviest users in the Senate were:

Raphael Warnock $605,900;

Jon Ossoff $316,700; 
Mark Kelly $302,600.
Eric Swalwell $86,500;
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez $83,200;
Jasmine Crocket $80,000;
Ilhan Omar $31,200.

In the lower house they were:

Cori Bush $233,700;

While nobody regrets providing security to keep our representatives and their family members safe, these same Democratic representatives have consistently voted to take away our God given right of self-defense.

Every Congressional Democrat who used campaign funds (other people’s money) for their personal security voted for the Assault Weapons Ban of 2025 (HR3115 and SB1531.)  How hypocritical of them to want armed guards to protect themselves and their family members, but they don’t believe you should be allowed to be able to protect yourself and your family.

In addition, both New York State Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand voted in favor of that Assault Weapons Ban. Of the 19 Democratic New York Congressional Representatives, 13 of them voted in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban, including my own Central New York 22nd District Congressman John Mannion.   

Those same people also voted against HR 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025. Not only did they vote against you possessing those scary black weapons of war, but they voted against you being able to take your legal firearm across state lines to protect yourself and your family.  Constitutional Carry should be available in every state, the same way your driver’s license is recognized from state to state. Having a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right, but the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional Right, that shouldn’t be infringed.

The average citizen in America can’t afford private security nor does the average citizen have discretionary funds to install an expensive security system in their home. About all many homeowners have today is a Ring camera on their front door.  Why can’t citizens have protection the same as our government officials do?  Citizens should be able to rely on the Constitution, which allows them the right to bear arms.

Mexico – New York’s Ambition  by Tom Reynolds

You are probably aware of the wide spread drug cartel related violence occurring in Mexico. 

Mexican drug cartel boss ‘El Mencho’ was killed in an attempt to capture him.  In the aftermath, it is reported that 25 members of the Mexican National Guard have been killed as well as 30 cartel members.  Another 20 people have reportedly been killed – so far - but with no designation so, presumably, they are civilians.

More than 1,000 people were stuck overnight in Guadalajara’s zoo, where they slept in buses.  The zoo sheltered them because many had been trapped when violence broke out in the surrounding states.  (I wonder if the Zoo had armed guards or if those sheltering just waited to become defenseless victims, much like Americans in our gun-free zones.)

American embassy workers and American tourists were advised to ‘shelter in place.’

In gun violence cases in the USA, the media and the Democrat’s leadership are quick to call for more gun control.  That is not happening with Mexico.  Why?

In 2024, CBS News reported that “Drug-related violence has seen more than 480,000 people killed in Mexico since the government deployed the army to combat trafficking in 2006.”*

In 2024, the AP reported that then Mexican President Obrador had a policy of not confronting the cartels and encouraged local people to seek out peace pacts with the gangs.**  (Sounds like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’ attitude towards fraud schemes by criminal aliens.)  Four Roman Catholic bishops met with Mexican drug cartel bosses in a bid to negotiate a possible peace accord between drug cartels and President Obrador said he approved of such talks.

Could silence on the gun grabbing Left, in the face of so much violence, be because Mexico already has strict gun control?  So, what is gun control like in Mexico? 

Mexico is what Kathy Hochul and the Democrat leadership envision for New York State.  Mexico is already doing what Hochul and company want done in New York and the results are a disaster.

Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution allows inhabitants to keep firearms in their homes for safety and self-defense.  (Not quite the USA’s 2nd Amendment but, like Hochul, the Mexican government tries to ignore their constitution.)

The Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) maintains exclusive control over Mexican firearm sales and registration.  (The equivalent of the ATF?)

If one wants to legally get a gun in Mexico, the process is lengthy, bureaucratic, and requires demonstrating a legitimate need for the firearm. Applicants face stringent background checks, psychological evaluations, and must prove safe storage.  (In NYS, Democrat sponsored bills want to require psychological exams.  Try getting a permit in NY City or other major cities in the USA; think in terms of years.) 

And if you can work your way through the bureaucratic roadblocks, the only legal gun store in Mexico is located in Mexico City and operated by SEDENA.  (Imagine if the only gun store in NY State was in downtown New York City?  Inconvenient doesn’t begin to cover it!  And I’ll bet against those SEDENA employees in the gun store being customer oriented.  Something similar was the goal of the ATF under Joe Biden, who was committed to shutting down legal retail stores to make it difficult to buy a gun store, legally.) 

For protecting a home, officials generally allow short firearms like pistols or revolvers in calibers up to .380 or .38 Special. Other weapons, such as .22 caliber rifles and various shotguns, are typically authorized for protecting rural land or for use in hunting clubs.  (NY State currently has proposed bills limiting calibers and types of guns that civilians may own. NY’s legislature aspires to be Mexico!)

Having a permit to own a gun for home protection does not automatically allow you to carry it in public. Federal law distinguishes between keeping a gun in your home and carrying or transporting it. (Much like what the gun grabbing left wanted before the Heller, McDonald and Bruen cases restored ‘keep and bear arms’ to its proper status.)

Public carry firearms licenses are difficult to obtain and are only issued to individuals who:

• are mentally and physically capable (The NY Legislature has proposed bills requiring a mental exam to get a permit)

• demonstrate a need to carry arms (What used to be called ‘May Issue’ in NY State before Heller, McDonald and Bruen)

• provide proof of employment

• served in the military

• do not have a criminal record

• do not use illegal drugs

Individuals must renew their license every two years.  (Something for Hochul to aspire to since pistol permits in NYS must be are renewed every three years.)

Mexican citizens cannot own an AR-15 which is considered military-style weapons (Assault weapons to the Left) and are strictly prohibited for civilian ownership.  (Kathy Hochul’s and the Democrat leadership’s dream.)

Penalties for illegal firearms are severe. (The same as penalties in NY State, unless you are an illegal alien, in which case NYS offers you sanctuary status, instead.)

Per MEXLAW.com, Mexico’s legal gun stores sold 52,147 firearms between 2009 and 2014.  Wow!  In spite of all the restrictions, drug cartels are able to illegally arm their ‘employees’ with ‘military style firearms’ while law abiding Mexican citizens only bought about 9,000 each year.***      

Any reasonable analysis would define Mexico’s gun control laws as failures. 

Perhaps Mexico should adopt NY City’s Mayor Mamdani’s approach and have social workers talk to the drug cartels and persuade them to tone down the violence.

*5 women, 3 men shot dead in the street in Mexican cartel stronghold - CBS News

**Mexico's most dangerous city for police refuses to give up or negotiate with cartels | AP News

***During the Biden administration, 1 million guns were sold every year in the USA. 

Colonial Sensitive Locations  by Tom Reynolds

According to SCOTUS’ Bruen decision, when enacting gun control laws, the government bears the burden to show that those laws are supported by a longstanding historical tradition that goes back to the founding of our nation.   Specifically: “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”  The 2nd Amendment is an “unqualified command” and exceptions to it must be historical exceptions.

Since it is 83 pages long and single spaced, I’ll have to rely on Stephen Halbrook’s review of The Second Amendment, Sensitive Places, and Comprehensive Government Security , a study by Dr. Angus McClellan.  The basic theme of this study is that there is a historical tradition of sensitive places but these places were not gun free zones.  Instead, when the government required its citizens to disarm to enter a sensitive place, the government provided the protection with armed security.  The government must provide security when it labels a place as ‘sensitive;” that is the historical tradition surrounding ‘sensitive places,’ not the left’s belief that sensitive places just need to be “gun free zones.”

McClellan points out that security was provided at sensitive places such as courthouses* and legislative assemblies** in each of the 13 original states (plus Vermont) and that at least 10 of the original states had security at polling places***.

When the government could not provide security for a ‘sensitive place’, colonial citizens were required to arm in order to protect themselves (unlike today when New York State makes ‘sensitive locations’ a gun free zone).  For instance, governments could not furnish security in colonial churches so citizens were expected to perform that function.  (In George Henry Boughton’ painting of Early Puritans of New England Going to Church, the men are all armed.)  In 1770, Georgia required that every person liable to bear arms in the militia “shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gun-powder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat...The penalty of ten schillings for neglect of same…”****  Other colonies had similar laws .

Arms were also required to be taken to public assemblies and carried while traveling. 

Modern schools are ‘gun free zones’ and every school shooting in the last 30 years has been in those ‘gun free zones.’ 

Schools were not gun free zones at the Founding.  Firearms restrictions applied only to students over whom the school exercised in loco parentis authority, and not to faculty. 

In short, there were sensitive locations at the time of the Founding. And when Founding-era governments did not have the resources to secure all such locations, the Founders had a solution to that problem and it wasn’t a ‘gun free zone’ sign; men were required to bring their firearms.  This is unlike the approach we see today in New York (and other deep blue states) where government-mandated ‘gun free zones’ render their citizens defenseless.   The founders believed in the opposite of the approach of blue states, today.

This lesson for the 21st century was clearly explained by Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century philosopher on crime.  He wrote that arms-control laws “worsen the condition of the attacked while improving that of the attackers; they do not reduce murders, but increase them, because there is greater confidence in attacking the unarmed than the armed.”  The Founding Fathers agreed with Beccaria that laws that disarmed citizens and left them unprotected by the government made citizens into helpless prey. 

‘Gun free zones’ must either be protected by the government or abolished.

McClellan’s work has already been used in an amicus brief.  We can hope that it spreads quickly to other lawsuits and results in related New York laws being declared unconstitutional.

It is often said that: ’Those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.’  The Founders knew that, Beccaria knew that and SCOTUS knows that, but the gun control addicts on the left ignore even the most straightforward lessons of history.

* the 1789 Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States provided for the appointment of U.S. marshals to attend the federal courts. 

**sergeants-at-arms and doorkeepers were appointed to keep order in and regulate admission into the various legislatures.  In 1786 such officials attended both the house of delegates and the senate in Virginia. 

*** In Virginia in 1742, two undersheriffs “with drawn Swords across the Doors” were placed as guards to allow voters to pass in and out of a courthouse to vote. 

**** #144 - Colonial records of the State of Georgia / compiled ... v.19 pt.1 1911. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library

Gun Laws Missing Something?  by Bohdan Rabarsky

Where should the focus be in mass killings?

Unfortunately, the latest shootings have shown that mass killings aren’t uniquely American. On Tuesday, February 11th in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, a shooter killed eight people and wounded 25 people. The shooter killed a 39 year old teacher and five students as well as his mother and an 11 year old stepbrother.  The latter were found in a residence and occurred before the shooter went to the school.  The shooter eventually took his own life. 

The firearms recovered were a long gun and modified handgun.  At the time of this writing, it hasn’t been determined how the shooter obtained the firearms.

Canada has a National Handgun Registration ongoing since 1934. On May 1st, 2020, Canada banned 1500 models of ‘assault weapons.’ Canada further expanded this list on December 5th 2024 by adding 300 more ‘assault weapons’ and 324 unique makes & models. On April 4, 2025, Canada banned 179 additional ‘assault weapons.’  Currently, there is a national freeze in effect on handgun sales, purchases and transfers.    

These weapon bans came in the wake of the 2020 mass killings in Nova Scotia, when a mass killer murdered 13 people over two days, then set fire to buildings that killed nine more people. The killer illegally obtained 4 stolen guns; 3 guns that were smuggled in from the United States and a Smith & Wesson handgun was taken after killing a RCMP officer.

The Tumbler Ridge shooter was born a biological male who transitioned to a female six years ago.  He was also a high school dropout. According to police records, over the years authorities have responded to his home over concerns about mental health issues.     

Canada’s strict gun laws wouldn’t have prevented either of these two mass murders. Canada’s strict gun laws target lawful gun owners, require firearm safety training, extensive background checks and registration. In the case of the Nova Scotia incident, the killer used burning buildings to kill 9 people, so any gun laws wouldn’t have made a difference.

In Sydney Australia, about 1,000 Jewish people were gathered together at Bondi Beach to celebrate Hanukkah when two gunmen, armed with long barreled weapons, began firing a them.  At least 16 people died and about 40 were hospitalized.  The murderers were a 50 years old man and his 24 years old son.

Australia has very strict gun control laws, including a 28 days waiting period for gun purchases. 

Ms. Segal and other Jewish leaders in Australia told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the deadly events were shocking but not unexpected.  They said that antisemitic incidents have intensified.   “It hasn’t come without warning,”.

Authorities in Canada, Australia and America need to start focusing on the mental health of their residents, instead of enacting more gun laws against legal gun owners, as that obviously hasn’t prevented mass killings.

A New FFL

SCOPE has written about the difference between the Biden and Trump administrations in regards to FFL’s and the ATF bureaucracy.  In response to SCOPE’s recent email on the newly nominated ATF Director, Robert Cekada, we received the following email.

I began my journey to become a licensed firearms dealer in New York in early 2024. It took over a year to receive the federal firearms license (FFL) alone. I mailed my FFL application May 30th 2024 and finally received it on June 2nd 2025. After 13 months, I had my 07 FFL. Another 3 months later, I had my New York dealer and gunsmithing licenses

Initially my application was on hold due to "possible" ties to a previous FFL. Rather than looking at my completely unblemished record (including no traffic violations) they made assumptions and the DOJ had everything on hold.

Fast forward to Donald J Trump. President Trump’s administration created new policies within the ATF which were designed to help protect the 2nd Amendment: in regards to licensed FFLs; and to gun owners in general. It was not easier to get a Federal Firearms License but he insured that dealers would not be penalized for clerical errors (a policy put in place by the previous administration). He decreased the size of the ATF and let them know there were not only in place to enforce firearms laws but to help legal, law-abiding FFLs. Current policy is that the ATF is to help FFLs whenever possible and give them the benefit of doubt rather than go to immediate revocation of their license.  Had Donald Trump not been in office I firmly believe I would not have received my FFL.

 Throughout the time I waited, I spoke to various agents of the ATF, numerous times.  My dealings with the ATF have been pleasant and all of the agents have helped me to the best of their ability. I know firsthand how an administration can "alter" the policies within a federal organization (whether they are legal or not.)  I see how easily the policies can be manipulated by whoever the current administration is - including those at the state level.

President Trump and Director Cekada have my full support and I am indebted to both of them for changing the internal policies of the ATF. Hopefully they have set a precedent that will remain in place for generations to come.

David B Freemanowner
Green Dragon Guns, LLC
38 Main St
Akron, NY 14001

HR 2189  by Tom Reynolds

The House voted 233-185 to pass H.R. 2189, Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.  According to the bill’s summary:

This bill removes less-than-lethal projectile devices (e.g., certain TASERs) from regulation under the Gun Control Act.

The term less-than-lethal projectile device means a device that:

1) is not designed or intended to expel (and may not be readily converted to discharge) commonly used ammunition or projectiles exceeding a velocity of 500 feet per second;

(2) is designed and intended to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; and

(3) does not accept (and cannot be readily modified to accept) an ammunition feeding device.

The Attorney General and ATF to must determine whether specific devices qualify as less than lethal, upon request, with a 90-day response timeline.

22 Democrats voted for the bill (1 Republican against) which indicates that a few Democrats are willing to put aside their hatred of anything that resembles guns and recognize that de-escalation tools should not be subject to the same taxes, registration requirements, and regulatory red tape as rifles and handguns.

The bill heads to the Senate next.

The bill creates a distinct legal classification for devices like Tasers and similar conducted energy or impact projectile weapons.  They  would be exempt from Gun Control Act firearm definitions and related regulations, National Firearms Act firearm definitions including taxes and registration requirements, and firearm and ammunition excise taxes under the Pittman Robertson framework.

It will be interesting to see if New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand can put aside their knee jerk negative reaction to anything resembling guns and vote for this common sense bill.

Can Pro-Gun bills actually come from the NYS Legislature?  By Ron Havlen

The number of bills containing the word ‘firearm’ introduced or acted on in the 2025-2026 session seems staggering. Especially when bills listed with a version in both the NY Assembly and NY Senate are counted as just one bill, resulting in 349.

Recently published was the new ‘Top Ten most Egregious Firearms Legislation.’ We even added a second “Watch List” of what we also consider bad bills, that didn’t quite make the top ten.

However, not all is the doom and gloom as we might initially think. There are actually a few somewhat bright spots, although rare. Below I list what I believe are the most beneficial bills to legal firearms ownership that I found within the current legislative session. It’s not many, but it does show there are a few legislators in NYS that can appreciate the rights inherited by all New York State citizens.

A03840/S01872– This bill would repeal the background check fees for guns and ammunition as they were included in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

 Assembly sponsor Blankenbush with several co-sponsors. Senate sponsor Walczyk.

A05584/S03481– This bill would eliminate background checks for ammunition sales in New York State and prevent the State from passing other background check fees on to dealers or their respective customers.

 Assembly sponsor Bailey with co-sponsor, Senate sponsor Helming with co-sponsors.

A02472/S01647– The ‘Civil Rights Restoration Act’ recognizes the abuse of basic rights in the SAFE act and seeks to return due process and the right to keep and bear arms to the people of New York State. It clarifies rights to counsel and legal hearing. While the bill doesn’t mention ‘Red Flag Laws’, it goes a long way to rectify certain injustices inherent in such laws.

 Sponsored by Assembly sponsor Hawley with co-sponsors and Senator Borrello.

A03863/S07302– This bill simply states its purpose is to eliminate the re-certification requirements for firearms licenses created by the Safe Act.

 Assembly sponsor DiPietro and Senate sponsor Gallivan.

A02547– The purpose of this act is to repeal Chapter 1 of the laws of 2013, amending the Criminal Procedure Law and other laws relating to: suspension and revocation of          firearms licenses; private sale or disposal of firearms, rifles or shotguns; and establishing a minimum age to possess a firearm relating to gun control.   What does all that mean; repeal the ‘SAFE Act.’

 Assembly sponsor DiPietro.

A09203– This is a very simple bill; it seeks a NY State Constitutional amendment which says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

 Assembly sponsor Barclay with several co-sponsors.

While, for the most part, our entire NY State government despises the average citizen’s basic rights, there are a few within the NY legislature who appreciate that it is the people, not the overbearing government, that have actual rights.

I encourage you to contact your legislators about the bills we list in the Top Ten Egregious and the Watch List and voice your concerns. I also encourage you to look beyond those bills at others you might find oppressive. And then I also encourage you to contact the legislators listed above and thank them for their support of the basic freedoms of New York Citizens.

NYS Assembly Members

 NYS Senate Members

A T F Director

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been the spearpoint for various presidential administrations in those administrations’ efforts to neuter the 2nd Amendment, through the government bureaucracy. 

Democrats fondly remember the ‘golden years’ - prior to Trump - when the ATF’s budget increased, ATF Directors were firmly anti-2A and agents were closing a record number of gun stores.

Anti-2A organization “The Trace” bemoans President Trump’s recent year in office: In one year’s time, he has effectively starved the ATF of resources and support. He nixed regulations meant to expand background checks for gun purchases and relaxed penalties for lawbreaking gun dealers. He proposed slashing the agency’s budget, and he has diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. After the ATF’s permanent director resigned, Trump twice installed inexperienced interim leaders as replacements.

Yeah.  So, what’s the problem?

“Lawbreaking gun dealers” were only dealers who made a clerical mistake.

“…diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. Enforcing immigration rules against gangs like Tren de Agua and individual murderers, rapists and sex-traffickers isn’t fighting violent crime?  Are these people worse than gun dealers who made a clerical mistake?  Not in Democrat’s minds.

“Proposed laying off 20 percent of the agency’s staff.”  With its history of anti-gun efforts, one has to believe the ATF is still populated by deep staters who are dedicated to preserving their personal power and position through dedication to the Democrat Party’s anti-gun philosophy.  Since many in the ATF are not political appointees, it is difficult for a pro 2nd Amendment administration to get the ATF to do a ‘180.’  Cutting the budget is one way to attack it.

But ‘The Trace’ is partially correct that there were several changes in ATF Directors during the past year.  So, Trump has nominated a permanent director.  The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a confirmation hearing for Robert Cekada, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Director of the ATF. 

During the hearing, Cekada repeatedly said that the ATF’s mission is “not to burden lawful gun owners.” He committed to upholding the Constitution’s right to ‘keep and bear arms’ and he promised no interference with law-abiding citizens exercising that right.  Regulations must align with law and avoid unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and the firearms industry.  No major opposition emerged – which gives us some reason to pause; one would expect wailing to the heavens by Democrats over a Trump nomination.

Cekada has been the ATF’s Deputy Director since 2025.  He has been with the ATF since 2000 and has held a variety of positions.

Ammoland gives us reason to hope as it reports that “The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) expressed support, with representatives noting Cekada’s history of collaboration and his pledge not to impose undue regulatory hurdles. The American Suppressor Association (ASA) entered a supportive letter into the record, praising his commitment to accountability, transparency, and stakeholder engagement. Gun rights advocates and law enforcement alike appeared unified in viewing him as a stabilizing, experienced choice.”

Hopefully, Cekada is not a deep stater who has been in hiding and is, instead, a rabid supporter of President Trump’s agenda for the 2nd Amendment.

Pretti in Minneapolis

There is controversy over the shooting of Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, on January 24th, over Pretti carrying a firearm and over subsequent statements by various individuals, including President Trump.  All of this is being interpreted in several ways, according to the person’s philosophical belief. 

Here are some thoughts on the legal right to carry (but not about the justification for the shooting.)

According to Chief Brian O'Hara of the Minneapolis Police Department, Pretti had a Minnesota state permit to carry a concealed handgun, and Pretti had no criminal record.  That permit would allow him to carry anywhere it was legal to carry.

Was carrying at the protest legal?  According to the US Concealed Carry Association, “Many states do not have specific laws targeting protests.”  Minnesota is one of the states that generally defaults to carrying being generally lawful at protests.

There may be location-specific restrictions that apply whether or not a protest is occurring.  For instance, one could not carry to a protest on school grounds.  That type of situation has not been mentioned, so it does not seem to be a case here.

It appears that it was lawful for Pretti to be carrying to the protest.

However, lawful carry can become illegal if you are violating another law at the same time, such as brandishing, threatening behavior, etc.  In other words, what happens at the protest can impact the legality of carrying there.  Pretti was obviously interfering with a federal law enforcement activity.  Did that make his carrying illegal?  That’s a complicated question for the courts to decide but one that should have been evaluated by Pretti before going to the protest.

Those would seem to be the facts about the legality of Pretti’s concealed carry.  Now the question is: should he have been carrying? Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. 

If one intends to go to a protest to watch the protest and / or avoid direct confrontation with law enforcement, there will be various opinions.  We know protests can turn violent and the purpose of carrying is protection, so one can make a strong case for legally carrying in these circumstances.  Remember Kyle Rittenhouse had to legally protect himself against violent assault. 

If one intends to get in direct confrontation with law enforcement at a protest, whether physical or taunting, that is a different set of circumstances.  It’s obvious that Pretti was involved in both taunting and a physical confrontation.

When he went to the protest, did Pretti intend to get involved to that level?  What was his state of mind?  An incident eleven days before, on January 13th, gives us a strong clue.  At the protest of the 13th, Pretti is shown, in a video, swearing at law enforcement officers and then kicking out the tail light of a federal SUV.  He was then forcefully taken to the ground by multiple agents.  Pretti either breaks free or was released and he runs away.  Subsequent video of the confrontation shows Pretti with a handgun in his waistband but that was unknown to law enforcement, at that time.

Firearm trainers stress extreme caution when confronted by a law enforcement officer (LEO), whether it be a traffic stop or something more serious.  First, keep your hands away from the hand gun.  Second, tell the LEO you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed.  Third, tell the LEO where it is located.  That minimizes the possibility of a tragedy.  Pretti did none of that on the 13th or the 24th.

So, it is clear by Pretti’s actions on both the 13th and the 24th that he knew there was a serious possibility of a direct confrontation with law enforcement and that he intentionally carried.

If Pretti was going to a protest and not intending a confrontation with law enforcement, it’s legal to carry and a case can be made that carrying was a good thing.

If Pretti was going to a protest and at that protest intended to have a confrontation with law enforcement, carrying may or may not have been legal and it was definitely foreseeable that it was a bad idea.

Wolford v Lopez Aftershock

SCOPE wrote about the Wolford V Lopez Supreme Court (SCOTUS) lawsuit which challenged Hawaii’s law that it was ‘…unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.’  (Gas stations, stores, restaurants, etc. had to post a sign that it was okay to carry on their property.)  This would also impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.

SCOPE believes the attitude of the SCOTUS’ justices made Hawaii’s chances look bleak.  Apparently, Hawaii’s legislators agree with SCOPE that their outlook is bleak, so they have introduced Senate Bill 3041.  This bill would force businesses open to the public to “post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.” It would have to be posted where it is “clearly visible to the general public and patrons entering the business or restaurant.”  Failure to post the sign would shut down the business completely, because it is “unlawful to operate a business or restaurant unless the placard is posted.”

I wonder how many non-gun owners ask themselves if a business allows large knives as they enter?  As Mae West might have said, ”Are you glad to see me or is that a large knife in your pants?”

Guns and large knives would be legal but the business must make a public decision as to whether to allow them.  Of course, this is being proposed in hopes of creating a boycott of pro-gun businesses by sympathetic gun grabbers.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it worked in reverse for those businesses that are pro-gun and they get more people patronizing the business.

The sign must also be color coded: a “green placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant does not allow firearms or large knives:  a red placard indicates “that the business or restaurant allows firearms and large knives;”  a “yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both.”  

Criminals will be saying ‘thank you’ for making their decisions easier.  (Especially those that aren’t good at reading; they just can’t be color blind when picking out the easiest place to rob.)  I’ll bet that gun free establishments will get more crime than those allowing guns.  

The 1st Amendment includes a right to be free from compelled speech.  But hey, if you are ignoring the 2nd Amendment, why would ignoring the 1st Amendment bother you?

Demonstrating their usual deep thinking, Hawaii’s legislators leave blank the definition of a “large knife.”