Log in

Briefings  from SCOPE President, Tom Reynolds

  • 09/02/2022 1:31 PM | Anonymous

    Round One  by Tom Reynolds

    Wednesday, the first legal challenge to Governor Hochul’s strict new gun control laws was dismissed on technicalities, allowing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), to go into effect September 1st, as planned.

    The CCIA bans all guns (not just handguns) in approximately ninety percent of New York State, as "sensitive" places, and imposes strict new concealed carry permit restrictions similar to - or worse than - those that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.  The federal judge’s 78-page decision questioned the constitutionality of New York's CCIA - even calling it legally "doomed" - and that it could be challenged again in the future.  But Chief U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that he had no power to overturn the gun control measures because of technicalities in the lawsuit

    The lawsuit began when, in response to Hochul’s move, two Virginia-based national gun lobbies, (the Gun Owners Foundation and the Gun Owners of America) joined with a Schenectady County gun owner named Ivan Antonyuk and filed suit against the law and argued that the CCIA is an illegal end-run around the Supreme Court. 

    As the law hadn’t gone into effect, Suddaby wrote that Antonyuk hadn’t been harmed (because he had not been subject to any prosecution). And the gun groups hadn’t shown they were actually harmed by the law, either, the judge added.  In addition, the defendant, State Police Superintendent Kevin Bruen, wasn’t actually the one in charge of carrying out many of the law’s provisions.  Based on those issues, a law was allowed to proceed that the judge labeled as likely unconstitutional.

    The judge warned that numerous parts of the law were likely unconstitutional and could be challenged again in the future: the state’s “good moral character” requirement; new laws requiring disclosure of social-media accounts; and the creation of an extensive list of gun-free zones.  These all appeared to violate a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to carry a gun.

    The vague requirement of "good moral character" is fatally similar to the New York carry-permit application language that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, Suddaby wrote.

    And the insistence that a gun could only be used "in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others" ignores what guns are all about.  "The very act of using a firearm in self-defense against another person necessarily involves threatening, if not actually causing, danger to that other person," Suddaby noted.  The law "literally does not permit one to use a firearm in self-defense" and is therefore "conditioned on a logical impossibility," he said, and "doomed" to be struck down.

    In regards to the disclosure of social media accounts, Suddaby said that such a requirement could endanger a law-abiding citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech. He also questioned whether such a disclosure could also violate someone’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In no situation should a citizen be required to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another, Suddaby wrote. Therefore, someone should not risk losing First or Fifth Amendment protections in order to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.

    Lastly, the judge found fault with the state’s extensive list of gun-free zones and the part of the law that banned guns on private property without permission. The list of banned locations was so extensive as to be “almost limitless.”  And the presumptive ban on private property was not consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation, he ruled.

    Nevertheless, after 24 pages of describing why he believed the law was unconstitutional, Suddaby concluded his decision by noting that he didn’t think he could do anything about it, right now.  (It appears that someone will have to be arrested for violating the CCIA in order to give Judge Suddaby the opportunity to move against the law.)

    In defending her laws, Hochul was quoted by Fox News as saying, This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”  Oh really!  Let’s show that data to Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year-old concealed carrier who stopped a mass shooter in Indiana’s Greenwood Park Mall on July 17.  It seems she has not read the Center for Disease Control sponsored report that estimates that a gun is used 496,000 times a year to stop an intruder in a home.  (Obviously, not on Hochul’s reading list.)

    In responding to the decision, neither Hochul nor Attorney General Letitia James addressed the fact that the Judge labeled parts of the law as unconstitutional and it was only a technicality that saved it.  Suddaby’s decision is subject to appeal.

    This case is not the only one challenging Hochul’s gun control scheme.  On Wednesday, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a new lawsuit, arguing the CCIA legislation “replaces one unconstitutional, discretionary law with another unconstitutional, discretionary law.”

    The NYSRPA lawsuit was filed the same day Hochul and fellow democrat New York City Mayor Eric Adams said New Yorkers who were approved for pistol permits by licensing authorities will face felony charges (and prison time) under the new law simply for entering a “sensitive” area designated as a gun-free zone with a handgun, rifle or other firearm.

    It needs to be pointed out that both Kathy Hochul and Letitia James are running for reelection in November.

  • 08/31/2022 4:12 PM | Anonymous

    Kickback Kathy Punts  by Tom Reynolds

    Volumes have been written about the hastily passed anti-2nd Amendment and anti-Constitution laws passed by NY State as an emergency “Necessity”.  Since the laws were written and passed under Democrats’ extreme emotional distress, they are flawed.  Logically, the laws should be repealed and the left could start over.  But emotions and not logic run deep in Hochul’s circles, so they are ignoring their own laws. 

    One of the laws (New York Senate bill 51001) adds onerous, time consuming and expensive steps to pistol permit renewal.  On August 27th, (5 days before the law takes effect) Hochul’s NY State Police just came out with guidance that says:

    A pistol or revolver license issued by New York City or Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties expires and needs to be renewed every 3 years.“

    “A pistol or revolver license issued outside of those areas does not expire, but the license holder must recertify with the New York State Police every 3 years for a concealed carry license and every 5 years for other types of licenses.”

    If you don’t renew, you lose your license.  If you don’t recertify, won’t you also lose your license?  So, the difference is…?  

    Because Hochul and her fellow Democrats came under so much fire (pun intended) they created an artificial difference between recertify and renewal.

    Gun owners are happy about this but what cannot be ignored is that Hochul is ignoring her own law to save her political behind before the election.  She can now say to anti-2A that she passed these laws and to pro-2A that she exempted them (hoping the pro 2A will ignore the rest of the law and continue to not be motivated to vote). 

    What happens after the election and this “difference without a distinction” is challenged by democrats in court?  Can we expect anti-2A Hochul and anti-2A Attorney General Letitia James to rabidly defend us? If these laws continue to stand, expect recertify to become renewal and we will all fall under the new law.

    The following is concerned with another part of that bill that Hochul is finding convenient to ignore. 

    In 2021, the NY Clay Target League reported that, in NY State, a total of 1,693 student athletes on 103 high school teams are participating on teams for trap, skeet, 5-stand and sporting clays.

    Does the bill ban these teams?  It would seem so.

    The following wording is taken directly from the law (and a link to the law is provided at the end of this Email).  Because it is so lengthy, items not related to this article are omitted. 

    “§ 265.01-e A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location…Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location is a class E felony.

    For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:

                …summer camps;

    …in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions…school districts…public schools…private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law…charter schools…non-public schools…board of cooperative educational services… special act schools…preschool special education programs…private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities…and any state-operated or state-supported schools

    …any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit…buses…or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers…and bus terminals;

    …any place used for…sporting events such as…stadiums.”

    After very negative feedback, the Hochul administration is using the following section to say that these teams are now legal, in spite of the wording in the law. 

    “This section shall not apply to: persons lawfully engaged in hunting activity, including hunter education training.”

    Trap shooting, etc. is now hunting, according to Hochul.  (Will you need a hunting license to shoot trap?  Wait until your hunting dog tries to recover those birds!)

    If the team should meet in a school parking lot or take a school bus to the competition, the team would seem to violate several other parts of the law Hochul has sponsored.

    If Hochul seems like a hypocrite, gun owners may react that it is hypocrisy in a good cause since it enables shooting sports to continue.  But just because we like the result, we must not overlook the fact that Hochul is violating her own law. 

    Trying to correct this mess brought on by Hochul’s false emergency, NY State Senator Pam Helming has introduced legislation (S.9530) to protect shooting sports in New York State. The bill would clarify language that does not expressly exempt competitive shooting sports events, often held at “sensitive locations.”  The bill would make clear that firearms are still permitted to be used at shooting sports venues and programs, including school-approved skeet, trap or clay target shooting teams, and organizations such as sportsmen’s clubs, youth clubs and scouting camps.

    However, Helming’s proposed law only deals with one part of a very bad law of many parts.  Don’t be distracted from the need to repeal the whole law, even if Helming is successful

    And in case you thought only NY State was this nuts; a new California law imposing civil fines on organizations that advertise any “firearms-related product” that makes firearms “appealing to minors” has caused a popular youth target shooting league to suspend operations. Faced with fines of up $25,000 for “any and each instance” of advertising firearms-related products under House Assembly Bill 2571, the California State High School Clay Target League (CASHCTL) posted on its website that it has been forced to close down.

    Bill Text: NY S51001 | 2021-2022 

  • 08/30/2022 10:38 AM | Anonymous

    Voting Facts  by Tom Reynolds

    Many people and especially gun owners believe there is little reason to vote because New York City will always win.  However, a SCOPE member, Bob Brannon, has put together the following Power Point with the following comments that shows a different story.  Its numbers are straight from the New York Board of Elections.  This presentation may surprise you.  It may also be useful in making a straight forward presentation about the need to vote in New York State.          

    Everyone should understand the gravity of what is happening in relation to the Second Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights, not only in New York, but across the country.  We can change that by voting.  There are, in fact, enough votes outside of New York City to win elections in what is considered by many to be a solid Democrat, anti-gun state.  NY is a liberal state because millions of active voters DID NOT VOTE.

    Why and how does this happen? What can we as individuals do to address this problem? What course of action can we take? There are no guarantees of success...only failure for those who do not try.  To succeed, we must stand unified and be willing to participate in something that is greater than self.

    The following comments apply to the attached power point.

    Slide one;
    These are the current numbers of registered active voters both in and outside of NY City.  Pay attention to the voters outside of NY City, just over seven and a quarter million.

    Slide two;
    These are the 2018 election cycle numbers of registered active voters both in and outside of NY City.  Again, pay attention to the voters outside of NY City, just over seven million.

    Slide three;
    This shows the shift in voters between the 2018 cycle and the 2022 cycle.  A mass exodus began out of NY city in 2020.  (Due to covid, taxes and exploding crime?)   

    Also note the rise in voters outside of NY city.  Changes are happening.

    Slide four;
    These are the votes actually cast in the 2018 gubernatorial election. A very simple question arises: “who did not vote”?  Almost three million voters (2,929,913) did not vote from upstate and Long Island. While, just over two and one half million voters (2,648,991) did not vote from New York City.  280,922 more people skipped voting outside of NY City than in NY City.

    Slide five;
    Across the entire state, Democrat ACTIVE voters outnumber Republican ACTIVE voters by a slightly greater margin of two to one. Although Republicans are outnumbered, elections are lost because almost 3 million non-NY City voters did not vote!   

    Slide 6;
    Gubernatorial map of 2018 election. A first glance would have most folks thinking that New York is a red (Republican) state.

    The ten blue counties that are outside of New York City are the most populous in the non-NY City environment. But Republican / Conservative Governor candidate Molinaro garnered over forty percent of the vote in eight of the ten blue counties and Molinaro lost the ten blue counties by 288,667 votes.  And remember just under three million upstate voters never voted.

    Slide 7;
    Cuomo did not have the New York City vote to thank for his third term...he had the nearly three million non-voters from outside of New York City to thank for that!  A fact that the media in this state has a habit of overlooking.

    Voting Facts.mp4
    Run online as a video)

     Voting Facts Power Point

    Voting Facts PDF 

    Talking Points for Presentation

  • 08/29/2022 6:03 PM | Anonymous

    New Laws –Information from NY State Police

    On Friday, the NY State Police posted the answers to some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the new firearm laws for handguns and rifles.  Below is the link to that posting.  It’s worth the time to read.

    Especially note that the State Police have now created a difference between RENEWAL and RECERTIFICATION of a pistol permit.  (Who would have guessed there was a difference?)  See FAQ’s #8, #14, #15 and #16. The actual law refers to renewal of an existing license.  Was there so much negative feedback about those who already have a license, now having to recertify as if they were new license applicants, that they came up with this interesting split?  In any case, it’s good news for existing permit holders.


  • 08/27/2022 1:40 PM | Anonymous

    Pistol Permit Recertification  by Tom Reynolds

    As you should know, the new Hochul laws on recertifying your pistol permit take effect on September 1st.   (Next Thursday.)  They’ll make the process horrendously onerous, time consuming and expensive.  In addition, there is all kind of confusion about its implementation. 

    Since the law does not take effect until September 1st, several SCOPE members have tried recertifying early, to see what would happen. For example, their recertifying due date might have been December 31, 2022, which is after the September 1, 2022 effective date of the new law and thus would be subject to that law.  Instead, they tried recertifying early on August 20th.  It worked!  The recertification is good for 5 years instead of the 3 years under the new law.

    The only drawback is that the recertifying date is now August 20, 2027.  So, they lost a couple months of time but picked up five years before having the expense and time of the new law when recertifying. 

    We don’t know how far in advance one could successfully recertify.

    What we don’t know is if NY will try to strike back at people who avoided the new law when they recertified early.  That effort seems unlikely, but Kickback Kathy and her minions really hate legal guns.  (Illegal ones don’t seem to bother her as her efforts are aimed at legal ones.)

    Adding to the confusion, the permitting section of the law is being challenged in the lawsuit Antonyuk v Bruen (which is sponsored by GOA-NY and to which SCOPE has contributed financially).  A decision from the judge is anticipated next week – before September 1st.  It is hoped that the judge will stop implementation of the law.  But it’s complicated.  The judge could put a temporary stop or a permanent stop on the law and in either case NY State will appeal.  In addition, the stop might apply to the entire law or only part of it. 

    Since it won’t cost any more to recertify early and might delay the cost for five years if the law should stay in force, the only drawback is losing time on the recertification date.  Each gun owner will have to decide for themselves what that means to them.

    Propaganda About the Recent Special Elections

    The liberal propaganda mill is trying to “make hay” out of the two NY Congressional special elections held on August 23rd.  But they can’t get facts straight and, as usual, you should not believe what they say - there’s more to it. 

    Republican Joe Sempolinski won the special election in the current NY 23rd Congressional District by 53% to 47%, a 6 point victory.  But several media have painted this as a defeat for Republicans since they incorrectly say the district is rated R+12, which would mean Sempolinski underperformed expectations by 6% points.  However, Sempolinski was running in the current 23rd which is only R+4.  So, he overperformed by 2 points.  After redistricting, it’s the new 23rd that is an R+12.  Apparently, the liberal media can’t get their facts straight.  Surprise!  Surprise!

    In the NY 19th Congressional district, the Democrat Ryan won 51% to 49%, a 2 point democrat victory.  The district is rated R+2 so the Democrat flipped expectations by 4 points – on the face of it - and the liberal media is trumpeting it as a repudiation of any “Red Wave” in November. 

    The R rating comes from the average of the last two presidential elections and that is the monkey wrench in the 19th.  Trump won the district big in 2016 while Biden won small in 2020.  The average of the two elections is Republicans by 2 points because of the size of Trump’s victory in 2016.  But the district was moving left by 2018; a Democrat has held that congressional seat in the last two congressional elections and won by 12 points in 2020.  In reality, the district had moved left. A 2 point victory for the democrat – down from 12 points in the previous election - might indicate the district is swinging back Republican, especially since special elections have low turn outs that may not be reflective of all voters. 

    Does it mean much on a national basis?  Probably not.  But the left’s propaganda machine wants to “psych out” Republicans and it needs to be answered.

  • 08/26/2022 3:41 PM | Anonymous

    New York State is a Gun Free Zone  by Tom Reynolds

    Effective September 1, 2022, Gov.  Hochul and the NY State legislature effectively declared that all private property in New York is a gun free zone.  (And most non private property, too.)

    Private property would generally include homes, farmland, businesses, Rod & Gun Clubs, etc.

    Not want to be a gun free zone?  Private property owners must affirmatively take action to declare firearms are welcome in order to NOT BE a gun free zone.  Otherwise, anyone bringing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun onto the property may be charged with Class E felony.

    You affirmatively take action by posting “clear and conspicuous signage” or if the owner gives their “express consent”.  (It is not known what constitutes “Express Consent”?) 

    The law says:

    A person is  guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted  or has otherwise given express consent.

    Firearm possession on non-signage private property is a class E felony.

    The following is a link to the actual text of the bill.

    Bill Text: NY S51001 | 2021-2022 | General Assembly | Introduced | LegiScan

    There are lawsuits filed that challenge this law but they have not yet been decided.  Will they be decided before September 1st?  That’s anyone’s guess.

    There are numerous unanswered questions about this. For instance:

    - If you post one sign outside, does it cover grounds and buildings?

    - If you have more than one building, do all require a sign?

    - What happens in a mall where different businesses take different positions on declaring gun possession?

    - Who decides on apartments, the lessor or lessee?  What if renters disagree, as in the mall example?

    Attached is a sign that you can download and post.  Feel free to use it – or not.  But remember, as the law stands today, you will have to post something or anyone carrying a firearm onto your private property as of September 1st is a felon. 

    Either way, remember this new law when you vote this November.  And in case this issue doesn’t persuade you, fill up your gas tank just before you vote!

    Legal Carry Permitted Here sign

  • 08/25/2022 11:15 AM | Anonymous

    YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII  by Tom Reynolds

    President Andrew Jackson said about the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has made its decision, “…now let him enforce it.”  (Andrew Jackson was a Democrat.)

    In three decisions, Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA, the Supreme Court came down clearly that the 2nd Amendment is not a secondary right.  With New York and the federal government leading the way, Democrat politicians have echoed Jackson’s words through their deeds; they have ignored the “law-of-the-land”.

    Unfortunately for the United States and our Constitution, several courts have also ignored the “law-of-the-land”.  Sometimes lower courts ignore the Supreme Court, outright, and other times they use bureaucratic subversions to delay implementation of Supreme Court rulings.  An example of both is “Young v. State of Hawaii”.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (the 9th) has jurisdiction over the “Left Coast” including Alaska and Hawaii. Federal trials are held in U.S. District Courts and the 9th hears appeals on those district court decisions.  The only higher court than the 9th is the Supreme Court of the U.S.  Historically, the 9th is the circuit court most reversed by the Supreme Court

    The state of Hawaii has a “May Issue” clause for pistol permits, much like New York State had until NYSRPA V Bruen ruled it unconstitutional.  Hawaii generally requires gun owners to keep their firearms at their “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” Section 134-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes contains a limited exception which allows citizens to obtain a license to carry a loaded handgun in public, either concealed or openly.

    In 2011, George Young applied to the County of Hawaii for a pistol permit and was denied for failing to satisfy the subjective exceptions in 134-9. Mr. Young has not been discouraged by a decade of rejections of his appeals to the judicial system.  (Well…maybe discouraged but he never quit.) Young finally appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court granted Young’s petition and remanded his case to the 9th for further consideration, citing the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v Bruen opinion.

    An eleven-judge panel of the 9th heard Young’s latest appeal, prompted by the Supreme Court decision.  A majority of seven judges punted and sent the case back to the district court - without a reversal based on NYSRPA or guidance

    Four judges dissented and Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote the dissent and explained the issues well. 

    The 9th “…shied away from its obligations to provide guidance to the lower courts and to answer the straightforward legal question of whether Hawaii’s ‘may-issue’ permitting scheme violated the Second Amendment right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense outside of the home. Bruen held unconstitutional a “may-issue” permitting scheme for public carry of handguns, much like the law challenged in this case…Instead of remanding without explanation or justification, the court should have reversed the district court in an opinion holding…that the “may-issue” permitting scheme was unconstitutional… If we issued such an opinion, we would ensure that Bruen is applied uniformly in our Circuit in future cases. And in this case, we would save the parties and the district court the time and expense of continuing to litigate issues that we could resolve easily.” (Emphasis added.)

    Two things the left does not worry about are time and expense since they are operating on the taxpayer’s dime.

    O’Scannlian continued: “…Young has waited over ten years to exercise his constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Because we opt not to decide this simple case, we force Young to wait even longer.“

    Optimistically, O’Scannlian wrote: “Someday, Young will finally be vindicated. Someday, our Court must issue an opinion that respects the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. “

    As far as the left is concerned, “someday” will be a cold day in hell.

    Judge O’Scannlain made a scathing but true statement about the 9th:  “…the majority seems to reveal a hidden rule in our Circuit: Second Amendment claims are not to be taken seriously.

    Young v Hawaii demonstrates the strategy Kickback Kathy Hochul and her Democrat cronies applied in passing their latest group of anti-2nd Amendment laws: ignore the law and force citizens to sue – at the citizens time and expense.

     Martin Luther King Jr. wrote "justice too long delayed is justice denied".  Little would King have suspected that he was giving marching orders to today’s democrats.

  • 08/19/2022 10:43 AM | Anonymous

    One Damn Thing After Another  by Tom Reynolds

    In his book “One Damn Thing After Another”, twice former Attorney General William Barr wrote about violent crime increasing dramatically because of, “…the prevailing liberal dogma that criminals were society’s victims rather than the victimizers.  During this time, as violent crime soared, the incarceration rate dropped…This surge in violent crime posed as serious a problem as we have faced as a nation.

    Pretty good analysis of our current situation.  Except…Barr was referring to the period from the 1960’s to the 1990’s! 

    Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

    In the early 1990’s while serving as Assistant Attorney General, Barr analyzed the situation and concluded, “…the problem of predatory violent crime was the problem of the chronic violent offender…a tiny fraction of the population were habitual violent offenders who committed most of the predatory violence in our society.”

    He continued, “The identity of these career offenders was not a mystery. They started committing crimes as juveniles – for which they were never held accountable – and kept on committing crimes as adults.  They continued committing crimes whenever they were let out of prison on bail, parole or probation.”

    Barr concluded, “The government’s highest duty…is to protect its citizens from the predations of violent aggressors…A government that can’t or won’t spend sufficient resources to prevent habitual violent criminals from continuously preying on peaceful citizens breaches its most fundamental obligation.” 

    The way to do this was to, “…identify, target and incapacitate this hard-core group of offenders by making them serve adequate sentences dictated by the imperative of public safety…”  In other words, put them in jail where they cannot harm the law-abiding public.

    As Barr’s then boss Attorney General Richard Thornburgh put it, “Before we can be kinder and gentler, we need to be rougher and tougher on crime.”   Before the government could create “enterprise zones” and other economic, social and educational opportunities, it had to stop crime. 

    As Attorney General, Barr began some tough on crime initiatives that were successful.  And as he describes, “… the predictable naysayers became louder…spend more on social programs to address the ‘root causes’ of crime…We don’t need more police, we need more social workers.” 

    Sound eerily familiar?

    Barr answers, “…while strong law enforcement may not be enough on its own to solve all of society’s problems, it is the necessary prerequisite for any social progress…safe neighborhoods – must be the foundation upon which all else is built.”  

    Unfortunately for all of us, our current governments waste money on economic, social and educational programs before they weed out crime, and then wonder why their programs fail.  (In fairness, success was never their goal.  These programs met the government’s real purpose of buying votes from those who are most victimized but only see the liberals “good intentions” and not the inevitable result.)

    Almost 40 years since Barr was first Attorney General, the lessons he learned and implemented are being ignored and crime is surging.

    Today’s liberals undermine and defund law enforcement.  They are soft on crime and refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions and they treat criminals as victims of society.  Their bail reform lets criminals free to commit more crimes, often before the paperwork from their original crime is processed.  Prisons are being closed, which also is happening to law abiding businesses in cities where those that should be in prison roam free to burglarize and terrorize businesses.  And let’s not forget immigration policies that create an open door to criminals, drug smugglers and terrorists.

    Liberals will say they are addressing the criminals with their “Red Flag” laws.  But like most liberal laws, their real purpose is to create a broadly defined law that can be used and abused against their opposition.  Broad “Red Flag” laws give liberals the opportunity to deny people their constitutional rights before that person has committed a crime.  And it’s not just the 2nd Amendment they are going after; the right of Free Speech is on their radar.

    The left never dies.  Their policies and programs are eventually shown to not work, but they only go into hibernation and eventually reemerge from their dens.  In 1994, an Assault Weapons back was passed.  In 2022, like The Terminator - it’s back.  Bad timing makes it our turn to fight the left, again.  We must not shirk our duty.

  • 08/18/2022 3:42 PM | Anonymous

    Smith & Wesson  by Tom Reynolds

    The House Oversight and Reform Committee under Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (a New York City Democrat) recently sent a subpoena to Smith & Wesson.  It’s well worth reading S&W’s response.

    Mark Paoletta, a lawyer representing Smith & Wesson also responded in a much longer letter.  Some highlights worth noting:

    The firearms company cannot track deaths or injuries, crimes attempted or carried out with semiautomatic rifles.

    “…Congress recently proved that it does not need such very specific information about exact units sold and revenue to do its job...On July 29, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives (the House) passed a ban on what you erroneously call ‘assault weapons.’ This only confirms my prior argument that the Committee does not need ‘every scrap of potentially relevant’ information to legislate.” 

    The Supreme Court has said, “Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” 

    There is no basis in Heller for drawing a constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.” 

    In another case the Supreme Court said, “The Court…is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

    Unfortunately, the Swamp does not believe Supreme Court decision apply to them.

    Given the Swamp’s recent attempts to intimidate Donald Trump and anyone who associates with him or votes for him, it’s nice to see someone standing up to the bullies in Washington.

  • 08/12/2022 10:22 AM | Anonymous

    Hanlon’s Razor  by Tom Reynolds

    On Thursday, I theorized that the raid on Trump’s home was a message from the D.C. Swamp that they will use the power of the government to try to destroy anyone who dares oppose them and even an ex-president is within their reach. 

    We know that Trump lives rent-free in the heads of the left.  Two impeachments, one of which was unconstitutional and occurred after he left office, the January 6th “kangaroo court” and the Russia hoax all prove that.  Even with that in mind, invading Trump’s home seems so politically mindless that one has to wonder what the Biden administration was thinking? 

    The answer is a theory called Hanlon’s Razor which says: “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    Biden once described his son Hunter as, “…the smartest man I know”.  Obviously, Biden travels in circles where the bar on “smartness” is really low, which might explain why his administration invaded Trump’s home. 

    The leftist media is trying desperately to justify the Mar-a-Lago invasion, which may well be ranked alongside the Bay of Pigs Invasion as Democrat disasters. 

    The current state of the Democrat Party is much like Wylie Coyote chasing the Roadrunner.  Wylie and the Democrats are desperate for anything that will derail their adversary.  The democrats want to stop Trump from becoming the Republican candidate in 2024, but everything they try backfires.  Inspired by the January 6th kangaroo court, the looney left (including the media) has put tremendous pressure on Attorney General Garland to do something – anything – and thus the raid.

    Since Franklin Roosevelt, the D.C. Swamp has been increasing and consolidating its power.  They now seem so confidant in their absolute power that they will use it in unprecedented ways without fear of reprisal.

    Senator Ted Cruz recently pointed out that the FBI is using symbols of possible violent extremism as a reason to begin investigating groups such as 2nd Amendment defenders and patriot groups.  Among these symbols are such extremist phrases as Molon Labeand Come and Take it as well as the Gadsden flag and the Betsy Ross flag.  By the way, two Betsy Ross flags flew behind Biden at his inauguration!

    Several polls have Trump losing, if he runs in 2024.  But the left seems totally obsessed by the thought of Trump running again and they must prevent it by any means.  That indicates that the polls are wrong and the democrat elite live in fear of a Trump victory.

    Given the audacity that the D.C. Swamp is now showing, a question that needs to be asked: if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2024, and especially if Trump is that person, will the D.C. Swamp allow a peaceful transition of power?  Remember, while the left condemns January 6th incidents, it stood by for months and allowed cities to burn.  History shows us that when tyrants believe their hold on power is seriously threatened, they will resort to any tactics to maintain power and control.

    Deeply Democrat states have their own version of the Swamp and they are growing equally bold in ignoring laws they don’t like, (such as the recent Supreme Court decisions on the 2nd Amendment), and even bolder in enforcing only those laws that they choose to enforce.  Luckily, there aren’t many of these states but, unluckily, New York is one of them.

    Which brings us back to the need for a 2nd Amendment.

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software