Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 2)  by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday, SCOPE gave you the legal background to the lawsuit we are discussing, today.

This e mail is about an effort to drive a small gun store into bankruptcy through unsubstantiated lawsuits. An NRA official said about similar lawsuits, “These cases aren’t designed to win… It’s a sinister abuse of the legal system aimed at bankrupting a lawful industry.” If they can drive gun stores out of business in New York State, they remove access to guns and ammo. 

This lawsuit is supported by the usual anti-gun suspects:  Everytown (Bloomberg), Giffords, Brady United. 

On May 14, 2022, at a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket in Buffalo, ten people were murdered and three were injured.    

The murderer, Payton S. Gendron, a white male, was 18 years old at the time of the shooting.  He had traveled three and a half hours to the Tops supermarket from his hometown of Conklin, New York.

On November 28, 2022, Gendron pled guilty to all state charges in the shooting, including murder, domestic terrorism, and hate crimes. On February 15, 2023, Gendron was sentenced to 11 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.

There seems to be no question that this was a ‘hate crime’ based on writings of Gendron.

The Bushmaster XM-15* that was used in the shooting was purchased from Vintage Firearms in Endicott, NY. 

Currently, there are six lawsuits filed against Vintage Firearms owner Robert Donald by: the City of Buffalo; the City of Rochester; relatives of the victim; bystanders at the shooting.  All lawsuits attempt to skirt the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and use New York State’s Nuisance laws passed in 2021.  (See yesterday’s email for deeper discussion on those laws.)

There is no question that Gendron passed the NICS background check after filling in Form 4473 at Vintage Firearms.  Gendron had also cleared another NICS check while purchasing a shotgun (not used in the murders) at a store in the neighboring town of Great Bend, Pennsylvania.  Two passed NICS checks would seem to prove that the seller had no reason to question the legality of the sale. 

In addition, an ATF inspection of Vintage Firearms after the shooting found no issues.

The lawsuits contend that Vintage Hardware’s owner should have seen that something was wrong with Gendron and stopped the sale.  But there is not a single factor that indicates that the owner would have known something was wrong with Gendron; for instance, he was not in any rush when buying the rifle. Gendron did nothing to arouse suspicion and the seller did not remember Gendron until later shown his picture. There are no accusations in the lawsuits that Vintage Hardware’s owner shared any of Gendron’s racial animosity that made it a ‘hate crime.’ 

In addition, the owner of a local pawn shop frequented by Gendron is an Irani immigrant who did not see any racist signs in Gendron.

So, the lawsuits throw a “Hail Mary.”

Since New York prohibits the purchase and/or possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, Gendron traveled to Pennsylvania to purchase a 30-round ammunition magazine.  In his on-line diary, Gendron posted photos of modifications he made to his rifle so that it could be equipped with the 30-round magazine, while acknowledging that this was illegal in New York.

The lawsuits claim that a Vintage Firearms employee instructed him as to how to replace the fixed magazine with the 30 rounds magazine.  Vintage Hardware’s owner told SCOPE he does not have any employees and, in fact, he did not know how to make this change until shown how, after the shooting! 

The change involves drilling out a part and the plaintiffs claim this made the magazine removeable.  (This is important!  If the lawsuits are successful, they will have redefined every semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine as an Assault Rifle, as there would be no fixed magazines; every magazine would be removeable by drilling it out.)

How are these suits possible since the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. This is the law that Joe Biden constantly lies about by saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued. 

Under this law, both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible; this is the same basis as almost every other product.  (This is not an issue in these lawsuits.)

Manufacturers and dealers may also be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime. (There is no evidence that Vintage Firearms had an inkling of what Gendron intended to do.)

There is another loophole in PLCAA and this is the one that the plaintiffs are using.  PLCAA does not shield the manufacturer or retailer when: “a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”  Under NY laws passed in 2021, (bills S7196 and A6762B), they classify firearms as a public nuisance to circumvent PLCAA.  Even though they are probably unconstitutional, the laws are still on the books.  Therefore, the plaintiffs say NY’s laws were violated and PLCAA does not apply.

Vintage Firearms is under attack.  But it isn’t about just this one gun store.  The gun grabbers in NY State are sending a message to all gun stores; we’re coming after you.  Open a gun store in NY State and you open yourself up to bankruptcy as the left will drag you through court and even if the gun store wins, the cost of defending themselves is so great that they lose.  In proof of this, Gendron purchased some of the parts he used from a major gun retailer which would have had the money to defend itself.  The lawsuits omit that store and go for a one-man operation in hoping it can’t afford to defend itself.

These anti-2A organizations like Everytown (Bloomberg), Giffords and Brady United are vicious and no-holds-barred in pursuit of neutering the 2nd Amendment.  Get in their way and they will punish you!

These lawsuits are great example of how anti-2A organizations with deep liberal pockets are a direct threat to our constitutional rights, by using the court system. 

If you would like to help, make check to the owner, Robert Donald and send it to:

Robert Donald
PO Box 5567
Endicott, NY 13763

Please note that you are a SCOPE member

Or send the check to SCOPE and note that it is for Vintage Firearms; 100% will be quickly forwarded.

SCOPE
PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY   14052

       * Bushmaster XM-15 Rifles | Palmetto State Armory

Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 1) PLCAA and Nuisance by Tom Reynolds

Vintage Firearms of Endicott, NY is a retailer of firearms and is being sued in several lawsuits related to a mass murder.  This is a good example of the strategy of the gun-grabbing Left, but is quite involved so SCOPE is presenting it in two parts on two successive days.

First, some general legal background.

What if you were walking down the street and were subjected to a drive by shooting; someone in a Ford drove by and shot at you with a Glock.  Would anyone expect to sue Ford because their car was used in a crime?  But the Left expects, under those same circumstances, to sue Glock.

How is a lawsuit possible under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was signed on October 26, 2005 and became Public Law 109–92? 

PLCAA protects, firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable, in most instances, when crimes have been committed with their products.  This is the law that Joe Biden constantly lies about by saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued.  Under this law, both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible; this is the same basis as almost every other product. 

However, there are some loopholes that the gun-grabbing Left jumps through.

Under PLCAA, firearms manufacturers and dealers may be held liable for ‘negligent entrustment.’  Negligent entrustment means: “the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”

PLCAA also does not protect when: “a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”   

As usual, the Democrats in the NY State government don’t believe the laws apply to them.  In order to circumvent PLCAA, NY laws passed in 2021: bills S7196 and A6762B.  Direct quotes from the bills:

§ 898-B. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

1.NO GUN INDUSTRY MEMBER, BY CONDUCT EITHER UNLAWFUL IN ITSELF OR UNREASONABLE UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CREATE, MAINTAIN OR CONTRIBUTE TO A CONDITION IN NEW YORK STATE THAT ENDANGERS THE SAFETY OR HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE SALE, MANUFACTURING, IMPORTING OR MARKETING OF A QUALIFIED PRODUCT.

2.ALL GUN INDUSTRY MEMBERS WHO MANUFACTURE, MARKET, IMPORT OR OFFER FOR WHOLESALE OR RETAIL SALE ANY QUALIFIED PRODUCT IN NEW YORK STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND UTILIZE REASONABLE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES TO PREVENT ITS QUALIFIED PRODUCTS FROM BEING POSSESSED, USED, MARKETED OR SOLD UNLAWFULLY IN NEW YORK STATE.

§ 898-C. PUBLIC NUISANCE.

1.A VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION ONE OR TWO OF SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-B OF THIS ARTICLE THAT RESULTS IN HARM TO THE PUBLIC SHALL HEREBY BE DECLARED TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

2.THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE SHALL NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE GUN INDUSTRY MEMBER ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING HARM TO THE PUBLIC.

In trying to justify this, the race card was also used in these bills; apparently, the firearm, itself, is prejudiced against minorities.  According to the bills:

This nuisance poses specific harm to New Yorkers based largely on their zip code and certain immutable characteristics such as race and ethnicity.  Illegal firearm violence has disproportionately affected underserved black and brown neighborhoods in our cities and throughout the state despite stringent state and local laws against the illegal possession of firearms.

These laws are (intentionally) vague enough to drive a tank through.  The Left will claim that any “controls and procedures” were not reasonable (by their definition.) 

Perhaps the ‘stringent’ laws which keep blacks in certain ‘zip codes’ from owning guns and practicing self-defense are a root cause and it’s not the firearm itself? 

Are blacks ‘underserved’ by the lack of gun stores available to sell them firearms with which they can practice self-defense?

New York State is not alone in this effort to take away your guns by any means.

Ammoland wrote about another state’s efforts to disarm law abiding citizens.

The city of Chicago filed suit against Glock for the third-party criminal misuse of its products, even though Glock is not directly responsible for the actions of criminals. Chicago is seeking to hold Glock liable when criminals use illegal devices (auto sears or so-called “Glock switches”) to illegally modify Glock pistols into illegal machine guns.  Chicago is using a “public nuisance” theory. A Chicago Tribune editorial said the lawsuit “represents an abuse of the tort liability system.”

In addition, devices that are designed to convert semi-automatic firearms to fire automatically are already illegal throughout the U.S under Federal law, 26 USC § 5845(b), which defines these devices as a “machinegun.”

Ammoland continues:

U.S. tort law has long held that a person or entity cannot be held responsible for a third party’s criminal acts.  Simply put: people are not responsible for the behavior of others. Therefore, if a violent criminal acquires and misuses a firearm to commit a crime, it is the criminal who is liable for the conduct, not the company that produced the firearm. Just like how Chevrolet isn’t responsible for the actions of drunk drivers.

In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against Chicago and its public nuisance theory. Pointing to well-established tort law, the opinion noted: the claimed harm is the aggregate result of numerous unforeseeable intervening criminal acts by third parties not under defendants’ control…the manufacturer and distributor defendants…are even further removed from the intervening criminal acts.

Chicago lost, but the city imposed tremendous costs on the defendants. An NRA official explained at the time, “These cases aren’t designed to win… It’s a sinister abuse of the legal system aimed at bankrupting a lawful industry.”

Such abuses led to the enactment of the PLCAA in 2005 which merely codified the standard tort principle.  Despite the PLCAA’s clear mandate, anti-gun politicians and their tort attorney allies continue to concoct unconstitutional legal theories in an attempt to get around the law.  Especially in deep blue states like New York where, in 2021, a nuisance law was passed about firearms.

(Continued Tomorrow)

Lee Strikes Again  by Tom Reynolds

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas is a major opponent of the 2nd Amendment and has told a few whoppers about guns, in the past.  She has now broadened her ‘expertise’ into astronomy. 

Lee’s district neighbors the Johnson Space Center and she is a member of the House Committee on Science.  In1997, she visited the Mars Pathfinder Operations Center in Pasadena, California. While there, according to an article by Sandy Hume in The Hill, Jackson Lee asked if the Pathfinder succeeded in taking pictures of the American flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969.

Recently Representative Lee spoke at Booker T. Washington High School in her Houston-area district.  She tried to provide some scientific explanation for the solar system's workings — but any students who listened are going to fail Astronomy 101. 

"You have the energy of the moon at night," Jackson Lee explained. 

(Note: the moon doesn't release energy at night, it is merely reflecting light from the sun.)

"Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon," which the graduate of Yale explained is a "complete rounded circle which is made up mostly of gases." It's "almost impossible to go near the sun," but the "moon is more manageable" because it's "made up mostly of gases"

Jackson Lee continued, saying "that's why the question is why — or how — could we as humans live on the moon. The gas is such that we can do that,"

(Note:  I’m sure you and Neil Armstrong know – but Lee doesn’t - that the moon is solid, not gas.  According to NASA, the moon's "weak atmosphere and its lack of liquid water cannot support life as we know it.")

Perhaps NASA should check with Jackson Lee and get the correct information from her?  Or not. 

These students will hold this with them forever; I am glad we were able to bring everyone together for such a historic moment. pic.twitter.com/7ldL8w0uql

— Sheila Jackson Lee (@JacksonLeeTX18) April 8, 2024

Hopefully the students will remember this and not vote for Jackson Lee when they become eligible.

And you thought Joe Biden was confused!

More Members’ Meeting Attendees

NY State Senator Thomas F. O'Mara of the 58th Senate district will be attending but is not a main speaker.  O’Mara has been a Senator since 2010 and prior to that was an Assemblyman from 2005 to 2010

The 58th Senate District is comprised of all or portions of Chemung, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Tioga, Yates and Allegany County.

Tom worked as an Assistant District Attorney and County Attorney in Chemung County before becoming the Chemung County District Attorney, so he has first hand experience with the crime issues that are plaguing New York.

Per his web site: “Senator O’Mara has been guided by a long-held belief:  Government does not create jobs, business does.  That’s why he’s focused on developing public policies and strategies that allow state government to improve the economic climate for doing business in New York by opposing tax increases, and reducing state spending, mandates, overregulation and oppressive property taxes.”

Senator O’Mara is a member of the NRA and SCOPE.  He supported a repeal the Safe Act and has opposed the expansion of Red Flag laws.

Former Congressman Joe Sempolinski will be attending but is not a main speaker.  Sempolinski is running for the 148th Assembly District seat.

The 148th Assembly District contains all or portions of Allegany, Cattaraugus and Steuben Counties.

Sempolinski was elected to Congress in 2022 to serve out the last four months of a resigning congressman’s term.  He declined to run for a full term.

 Per Sempolinski’s web site: “The right to bear arms is a fundamental, individual, human, and Constitutional right. The NY SAFE ACT should never have become law. He is against the new state laws that implement background checks to purchase ammunition and restrict law abiding gun owners in so called “sensitive locations.”

Concerning freedom of speech: “In a free society, the way to defeat an idea is by arguing for a better idea, not by silencing those who think differently.”

Joe is a SCOPE and NRA member and a gun owner.

The Fight Continues:  Assembly Bill 03855/Senate Bill 05763  by John Elwood

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788 and operationalized in 1789, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government.  In it’s first three word ----- “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.  Many people believe the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is the most important amendment because it defends the rest of the Constitution. 

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” 

            Since the creation of the United States Constitution, there have been periods in our history when different parties and organizations tried to circumvent the Second Amendment. A few examples of this include passage of the 2013 SAFE Act in NY State, the possible adoption of new merchant category codes for gun and ammunition purchases, the adoption of red flag laws, and Joe Biden’s continual promise to ban assault weapons.

To fight against this continual effort by the gun control advocates, organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York State Rifle and Pistol Association NYSRPA), and Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) were founded.  SCOPE’s mission statement states,” to protect, restore, and expand the gun rights of all New Yorkers.”  Even with these gun control right organizations, gun control advocates continue their fight today.  New York State Assembly bill 03855 and New York State Senate bill 05763 are examples. 

            New York State Assembly bill 03855 and companion bill Senate bill S05763 establish requirements to purchase a firearm, shotgun, or rifle.  These requirements include:

• -         Requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to purchasing a shotgun or rifle.

• -         Establishes additional requirements for all firearms, shotguns and rifles including:

• o   Taking a five (5) hours gun safety course and exam.

• o   Passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy.

• o   Providing notarized proof of a passed drug test.

• o   Providing notarized proof of a passed mental health examination.

• o   Providing proof of purchase of firearm and ammunition safe storage depositories.

• o   Passing a criminal background check.

            Assembly bill 03855 was introduced and referred to the Assembly codes committee on January 3, 2024.  To date, the codes committee has not debated/voted on the bill because the Assembly is working on the State budget.  As of April 20, 2024, there will be 18 working days remaining in the legislative year.  A03855 ‘s sponsor is Chantel Jackson, from Assembly district 79 located in Bronx, New York City.  To date, Assemblywoman Jackson is the sole sponsor.

            The same as bill to Assembly bill A03855 is New York State Senate bill S05763, sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker from Senate district 21 located in Brooklyn, New York. Senate bill S05763 was introduced on January 3, 2024, and referred to the Senate codes committee.  Senator Parker is the sole sponsor for Senate bill S05763.  Both bill sponsors are from New York City where there are no SCOPE chapters. 

            SCOPE’s position is to OPPOSE these two bills. 

              Assembly bill 03855 and Senate bill 05763 are good examples why SCOPE MUST continue to protect, restore, and expand gun rights of New York State citizens.  Gun control advocates will continue their attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment until they get their way.  ALL SCOPE members must write their legislators and oppose this legislation, bring new members into their chapters, and help write new legislation supporting the Second Amendment.  If we fail in this mission, our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same rights we have had in our lifetime.  Get involved and make a difference.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Are Like Guns by Tom Reynolds

2nd Amendment defenders are used to the misinformation and lies from government officials concerning guns.  (Joe and Kathy, we are talking about you.) For those that doubt the deceptions, take a look at electric vehicles (EV’s) for a sample of the ‘straight shooting’ that comes from NY’s government. In home charging stations will be a necessity for EV’s but the entire picture is much broader and has deeper consequences than NY would have you believe. 

Considering putting an EV charging station in your house?  The following information concerning EV charging stations from NY State’s website.* It presents a different picture thant Hochul and company present in their public statements.  After you see this, you should have some doubts about anything the NY government is saying about anything...if you don’t already.  (Since we already have experience with misinformation on firearms, why should electric vehicles be any different?)  

Level 1EV charging stations are nothing more than a standard, 3 prong, 120v outlet.  A portable cord is used to charge the car.

Chargers provide 2-5 miles of electric range for each hour of charging.  12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 60 miles!  That’s less than an hour of highway driving.

Note: This is barely practical only as a home use charging station.  Okay only for short daily commutes.  Presumably, you keep the battery charged to 100% by ‘topping off’ but the long recharge time eliminates longer commutes or any other extensive travel.  If you drove 100 miles, it would take 24 hours to recharge.

Level 2EV charging stations use 208-240v and use a standard connector that applies to all cars except Tesla.  Tesla has an adapter.

Chargers provide about 20 miles of range per charging hour.  12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 240 miles.  That’s less than 4 hours of highway driving.

This charging station could be used at home or in work places or parking garages but the car must be parked for several hours.

Level 2 charging stations range from $1-$4,000 per port plus installation costs are $2-$10,000, inclusive of labor, materials and permitting.  (Estimates probably apply to home installation.  Commercial installation would probably be more expensive.)

Note: This seems like the minimum charging level someone would want for convenience and necessary for any longer daily commutes, unless you like living on-the-edge of running out of battery on the road with a level 1.  (Unfortunately, you cannot carry an extra 5 gallon can of electricity for emergencies.) 

Expensive upgrade.  Hard to imagine it would ever pay for itself in a home, especially if you need two EV’s for two worker households.  It gets even more expensive when you include the added cost of more expensive electric vehicles.

This has some limited commercial applications.

How many of these would employers install for their employees at $14,000 each plus extraordinary electrical upgrades.  Would the employer charge for their use? A 50 employee business would require a $700,000 investment, minimum.   

Direct Current Fast Chargers(DCFC) require 3-phase power and up to 500V to provide 50-400kW of charging power. Two common DC connection standards exist and are available on many electric cars, except for Tesla, which uses its own connector.

DCFC charging stations are about $25-$50,000 in equipment cost plus $50-$100,000 in electrical service upgrades.

A DCFC can provide more than 100 miles of range in an hour.

Note: Billionaires might get these for their home but these are exclusively for commercial use and not for use by the bourgeoisie.  And don’t expect motels to invest in these. 

If you plan on taking a trip in an EV, you would have to plan for access into a DCFC charging station – and taking the time needed to recharge.  (And hope there is not a line!)  Don’t count on a motel or a friend’s house since their charging station probably won’t give you enough range. 

If experience means anything, the NYS cost estimates are probably low.  In addition, switching from fossil fuel heating and fossil fuel cars to all electric heating and EV’s will necessitate a mammoth upgrade in the electrical supply system which will be reflected in your electric bill and inflation.

The mileage estimates are, presumably, for unloaded vehicles.  Using a pickup to get a load from the hardware store or piling the family into the car will significantly decrease the range.

The mileage estimates are, I’ll bet, for flat and level places.  NYS has a variety of environments and many people in NY are surrounded by hills, which will impact mileage estimates - negatively.

Back on July 27, 2022, SCOPE did another email about electric trucks hauling stuff.**  It’s worth a reread. In addition, the part in the email about the increase in the copper supply needed to become all electric is a great example of government planning.

This isn’t about whether or not you believe in the various climate change theories.  This is about the government being truthful in explaining and justifying the consequences of its actions.  Like everything about the transition from fossil fuels, this is horribly more complicated and expensive than the government would have you believe.  Kinda like gun control!

*  Installing a Charging Station - NYSERDA

**  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Gun Owners Own Trucks, Too (scopeny2a.org)

Albany Ethics-A Double Negative

Albany politics seems to forever be a race to the bottom.  Here’s something you may not have read about that furthers that view.

It recently came to light that NY Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has been having an affair with a union lobbyist, probably since November.  (The explanations on the timeline do not always make sense.)  Heastie’s reaction to the affair being exposed is that it is none of the public’s business that he was having an affair with someone lobbying his office for money and laws.  Heastie seems to believe that NY City politicians, like him, would never let their personal lives interfere with their political lives.

This is the tangled web as best we can unweave it.

The Greater New York Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust (LECET) seeks to promote the use of unionized labor on New York construction projects and enlist public support for those workers’ wages.    The labor arm of LECET is the Mason Tenders’ District Council.  They deal with matters that regularly come before the NY Assembly. 

LECET is what is lovingly called a lobbyist.

State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has reportedly been in a romantic relationship since last November with Rebecca Lamorte, according to the outlet NY Focus. Lamorte is one of four LECET officials listed as lobbyists for the organization in a disclosure covering January and February. The organization reported lobbying various Assembly members and state Senators on a handful of bills over those two months, ranging from budget bills to a new prevailing wage requirement.

Following the New York Focus article on March 14, when questioned about his relationship with a lobbyist, Heastie replied: “I am never - again let me make that clear - addressing my personal life.”  (That’s called no comment, you are hitting too close to home.)   

Obviously, a sexual affair between the NY State Assembly Speaker and someone who is lobbying the Assembly raises some ethical questions, but not in Heastie’s opinion.

On January 8th, Lamorte met with Heastie’s senior staff concerning LECET’s top priority bill to promote the use of union labor at major State University of New York construction projects, according to a LECET spokesperson. 

Sometime after the January 8th meeting, Lamorte told her boss, LECET Executive Director Dean Angelakos, about the relationship with Heastie. At that point, LECET’s compliance attorney, David Grandeau, advised that Lamorte should not lobby the Assembly, and Angelakos barred Lamorte from doing so.

Per NY Focus, Grandeau said in mid March that Lamorte made LECET “aware” that she was “seeing the speaker” within the last 30 to 45 days, which could include sometime after January 8th, if you stretch it. 

According to a March 11th letter drafted by the Assembly majority’s Counsel and sent to the Assembly majority, and obtained by New York Focus, the attorney confirmed that Heastie adopted a recusal policy in November which bars him from meeting with or making decisions about organizations linked to LECET*.  The letter stated that Senior staff would “advance a consensus decision” to Heastie concerning “any matters specific or unique to such organizations.”

The dates are confusing.  According to Heastie’s attorney, Heastie recused himself for dealing with LECET in November but Lamorte did not tell her LECET boss about the affair until later January.  Between November and January, wouldn’t someone in LECET be curious if Heastie had recused himself? 

Going forward, and in the lowest traditions of Albany politics, Heastie’s staff would know about the affair with Lamorte but that would not affect their recommendations to Heastie about Lamorte’s lobbying efforts.  Albany is far above such butt kissing by political staff?

When word leaked about the NY Focus investigation. Angelakos authorized compliance attorney Grandeau to confirm the romantic relationship to New York Focus. Grandeau added that having seen “what I guess they’re calling a recusal” letter from Heastie, he advised the union “that [Lamorte] not lobby the Assembly.”

This public announcement reportedly made Heastie unhappy. ( Ya think!)

Since 2014, the Mason Tenders union’s political action committee has donated more than $120,000 to Heastie’s campaign or political action committee, including $23,000 last year.

In February, Michael McGuire, director of Mason Tenders’ District Council Political Action Committee made a $5,000 donation while attending a fundraiser for Heastie’s political action committee. He said that, at the time “I was not yet aware of the recusal policy.” (A LECET official was not aware in February of a policy in affect since November [or January?]  Certainly, when they accepted the donation in February, Heastie and his staff were aware of the recusal policy which was supposed to be in place since November.)

The day before the news about the affair broke, March 13th, Heastie called a top official within LECET’s labor arm to return the $5,000 campaign donation. 

Lamorte later sought a reversal of the policy based on the March 11th letter.  Grandeau responded that Lamorte should remain barred from lobbying the Assembly.

However, a spokesperson for the LECET has told New York Focus that Lamorte can resume lobbying the Assembly — including Heastie’s staff — but not the Speaker himself.  (Try not to laugh – or cry.)

Mike Hellstrom, co-chair of the Greater New York LECET, confirmed that Lamorte will remain their lobbyist in Albany. “Protocols are in place and being followed so that she can continue her work for us. People in public service can do their jobs ethically while keeping their personal lives private.” (Of course they can.  No need for ethics regulations in the NY Legislature.)  Hellstrom’s statement mirrors what Heastie told reporters: “My life will never be in conflict with my job.” 

Hellstrom also said that Dean Angelakos offered his resignation as executive director of LECET and we accepted it.

With Lamorte allowed to resume lobbying the Assembly, New York Focus asked LECET’s compliance attorney, Grandeau, for comment about LECET’s new leadership rejecting his advice. Two days later, Grandeau told New York Focus that he had resigned as LECET’s outside ethics counsel. 

“I was not fired,” Grandeau said. “…it was my decision, not theirs.”

According to a LECET spokesperson, the group’s current leadership has been displeased with Grandeau over his role in disclosing Lamorte’s relationship and other matters related to the group’s lobbying filings.

In summary,

Heastie and Lamorte can continue their affair.

The union head who banned her from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

The union’s compliance attorney who recommended banning Lamorte from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

Life in Albany continues as usual          

So, Heastie and his staff are above the ethical issues that plague the rest of the world.  As testimony to that, in 2021, the husband of Heastie's Chief of Staff was sentenced to 76 months in prison and ordered to pay $136,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for his earlier guilty plea to cocaine trafficking and tax evasion charges. Brooks-Dennis apparently enjoyed a lavish / opulent lifestyle and never questioned where the money came from?

*The March 11^th letter:

March 11, 2024

To Whom It May Concern:

In response to the request for confirmation regarding the Speaker’s recusal from matters relating to the Mason Tenders’ District Council of Greater New York, including laborers locals 66, 78, 79 and 108, and/or the Greater New York LECET Fund, please be advised that the following directive was communicated to relevant senior staff in November 2023 and remains in effect until further notice:

• the Speaker will not personally attend meetings with the aforementioned organizations; and,

• senior staff will come to and advance a consensus decision to the Speaker for any matters specific or unique to such organizations.

Rebecca Mudie, Esq.
Counsel to the Majority THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this directive as you implement your own internal protocols, and to the extent I am able to, I will happily provide additional information.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Mudie, Esq.
Counsel to the Majority THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

Myths and Common Sense  by Tom Reynolds

Peter Mutuc recently did an article entitled: 10 Science Myths You Probably Believe (Thanks To The Movies).

Two of Mutuc’s ten myths involve myths about firearms and we thought you might be interested.  None of this probably comes to SCOPE members as a surprise but this might be helpful in explaining to some of the gun grabbers about the misinformation that exists about firearms, much of it perpetuated by Hollywood.

#1Silencers / Suppressors

“Modern silencers decrease the noise from a gunshot by around 30 decibels (dB). This isn't nearly enough to keep most guns quiet, as firearms typically produce around 150 dB.  Using a silencer can only really reduce gunshot noises down to the level of a nearby jackhammer. Even the firearms industry recognizes that the term silencer is a misnomer, and has shifted to calling them suppressors in order to more accurately describe what they do.  Nonetheless, silent gunfire remains one of the most widespread science myths in the history of Hollywood - as seen in the film adaptation of Hitman, the John Wick movies, and the Bond franchise.”

#2 Impact of bullets

“A common occurrence in action movies, people shot by guns are often shown getting thrown back by the impact as they would with a melee hit. However, bullets are not only designed for penetration but are also thousands of times lighter than any human body. This is why they tear through flesh and actually have a minimal impact on anywhere else apart from where they hit. While gunshots throwing people off their feet has been largely perpetrated by Hollywood blockbusters, the roots of this myth go back to classic Hong Kong action cinema - particularly the birth of gun-fu through the first John Woo movies.”

On the topic of common sense issues…

Georgia Senate Bill 189 passed their House by a vote of 101 to 73 and the Senate by a vote of 33-22, sending it to Gov. Brian Kemp for his signature or veto.

Democrats slammed the bill, saying it would enable more baseless attacks on voters. 

So, what is so “baseless” about it?

The bill spells out what constitutes “probable cause” for upholding challenges to voter eligibility, which could lead to voters being removed from the rolls.

Probable cause would exist if someone:

• has voted or registered to vote in a different jurisdiction,
• has registered for a homestead exemption on their property taxes in a different jurisdiction, is registered at a nonresidential address, or is dead.

I’m going out on a limb and if the dead person shows up to challenge being deregistered, they will probably win and be reregistered.  The other challenges would prevent voters from voting in two different places.

Oh yeah, there is something else in the bill the Democrats don’t like.  The bill would grant access to Georgia’s ballot to any political party that has qualified for the presidential ballot in at least 20 states or territories. The change could be a boost to independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign has spooked Democrats worried it could draw support away from President Joe Biden.

Speaking of Robert F. Kennedy Jr…

The Hill and Ammoland report that Kennedy has said, in the past, that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support and Republicans oppose.  (And if the Democrats could pass it with Democrat only votes, would RFK Jr. veto it for not being bipartisan?  If one Republican voted for it, would it qualify as bipartisan?)

“Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past.”  (Don’t go after guns because of polarization and not because of the right to self-defense?  The “Going after people’s guns at this point in history” leaves open that there might come another time or set of circumstances where he’ll return to his past hostility to guns and decide the time is right.)

“I am not going to take people’s guns away. You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.”   (That is real common-sense talk about guns.)

He is also quoted as saying: “I do not believe that there is, within that second amendment, that there’s anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade in the ownership of guns.”  (He is acknowledging that there are 2^nd Amendment restrictions that many other gun grabbers ignore.  But, why would we want to reduce the legal trade in ownership of guns?)

“We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.”  (Metal detectors at schools?  Xray all back packs?  He ignores that 100% of school shootings happen in gun-free zones.) 

SCOPE could not find any positions on gun control by RFK Jr.’ VP candidate Nicole Shanahan.  However, one of the 3 main thrusts of her Bia-Echo Foundation is “social justice”.

Time is short to RSVP for the Members Meeting on April 20th starting at 10 AM.Lunch included. Montour Falls Moose Club 2096 State Route 14Montour Falls, NY 14865 Hear updates on what is happening with 2A in New York State and what SCOPE and others are doing to protect your 2A rights. In addition, hear presentations from legislators. State Senator George Borrello has already confirmed and we expect others to confirm shortly. Attendance is free although donations are gratefully accepted.

RSVP  - you can respond to this email with names of those attending - you can print the Member Meeting RSVP form and mail in your RSVP - you can email sue.scopeny@gmail.com with names of those attending

Another Lawsuit- Tasers and Stun Guns  by Tom Reynolds

Ammoland reports that the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a final resolution to its lawsuit challenging New York state and municipal laws prohibiting private citizens from possessing and using stun guns and tasers. The case is Calce v. City of New York.

“Given New York’s history of wanting to keep its peaceable citizens defenseless, it comes as no surprise they would remain an outlier in having a ban which prohibits people from owning electronic arms,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second Amendment ensures our ability to possess and carry bearable arms, including those that were not in existence at the time of the Founding, yet lawmakers in New York believe they somehow have the ability to ignore that guarantee. Prior to Bruen, other courts have found these bans to be incompatible with the Constitution, and we believe this case should not yield a different result.”

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. Each of the five individual plaintiffs in this case – Nunzio Calce, Allen Chan, Shaya Greenfield, Raymond Pezzoli and Amanda Kennedy – are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y.

As noted in the brief, “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections simply because they were unknown to the First Congress than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

“The brief filed today demonstrates that stun guns and tasers are protected by the Second Amendment and we demand a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ban,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case was filed in March 2021, and it’s past time for the court to once and for all declare this law unconstitutional.”

Note: SCOPE wrote about one of the cases that preceded this, way back in August 2021. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Caetano Never Dies   It was about Massachusetts doing what New York is doing and how it took the US Supreme Court to slap down Massachusetts and its liberal judges who ignore the Constitution.

SCOPE constantly stresses the need to vote.  You can check you voting status by going to our web page.

S.C.O.P.E. - Shooters Committee On Political Education - Dedicated to preserving the 2nd amendment rights for the residents of New York State (scopeny2a.org)

On that page is Check / Protect and click on True the Vote

Election Season – a license to misinform by Tom Reynolds

In what seems like a daily occurrence, more and more laws are being proposed that would require citizens to have a permit or license, pass a test, and perhaps even be covered by liability insurance in order to buy / sell / touch a gun or ammunition. 

What if the need for a permit / license/ insurance were applied to exercising your 1^st Amendment rights?  Or better yet, what if politicians were required to get a permit / license / insurance before exercising their 1^st Amendment rights?

With the election season upon us, we are in the silly season of outlandish statements to be printed as facts, as long as the statements are made by those on the left.  Some examples of this ‘misinformation.’

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is letting Texas start arresting and deporting people who enter the country illegally, by refusing to block a new Texas law. The justices, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the Biden Administration’s request to keep the Texas law on hold while a legal fight goes forward at a lower court. 

The three liberal judges on SCOTUS dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.”

The COURT “invites further chaos and crisis?”

Will the left-wing media report that the chaos and crisis is already there, created by President Biden, and Texas is only trying to get the chaos under control.  Or will it report Sotomayor’s dissent as if it were fact?     

A leftist SCOTUS’ justice made a political rather than a constitutional decision?  Say it aint so!

Anthony Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to a security position in the White House.  In his January 28^th, 2022 transcribed interview with the January 6 House Select Committee, Ornato told investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.  Ornato also testified that President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. 

AFTER Ornato’s testimony under oaty, the January 6 House Select Committee had claimed they had “no evidence” to support claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. 

The Federalist reported on March 8^th that the Committee suppressed Ornato’s interview from public release, until now.

Will the NY Times and others report this or let their erroneous original anti-Trump reporting stand?  Does a bear…  Which is what the NY Times reporting does.

By the way, after Ornato’s first interview - in an amazing coincidence - critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato began appearing in media sources such as the NY Times.  Could there have been committee leaks about Ornato’s interview and a concerted effort formed to discredit him in advance of his interview being made public?  Say it aint so! 

On February 16, in a case brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief.

This judicial decision brought about an “oops” moment.

Prominent investors immediately signaled their intent to halt their business in New York following the Trump verdict.  Real estate mogul Grant Cardone announced that his firm Cardone Capital would no longer underwrite New York real estate.  Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary vowed to no longer invest in the state as a result of the verdict.  Their basic thinking is that if the Attorney General can target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?

Recognizing the problem, Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. She claimed that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

If you believe that smelly pile of ‘misinformation’, Hochul also has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And in further evidence Hochul was ‘misinforming,’ ten days later, AG James dropped her latest politicized case. The new target is JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef.

What did JBS do? 

JBS had committed itself to Climate Change’s Net Zero by 2040.  AG James is suing them because: “The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”

Well, since James is after those with an unrealistic Net Zero plan…

In 2019, New York State adopted a Climate Act which committed the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan laying out how it was going to get there. The Scoping Plan has been called completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. So, when is the AG going to bring a case against New York State under the same Executive Law 63(12) that was used against Trump and JBS?

When is Hell freezing over?

Batten-down-the-hatches defenders of the 2^nd Amendment.  With the silly season now open for political speech without a license, expect more ‘misinformation’ about gun owners being extremist, gun toting, militarized crazies waiting breathlessly to use their high capacity ‘assault rifles’ to defend ourselves against misunderstood criminals who only turned to crime because our bourgeoisie society failed them.