Anti 2A Bills

Numerous anti-2A bills get proposed in the NY State legislature every year.   It’s educational to follow a few of them and see the various issues surrounding them.

Keep in mind that the current legislative session includes calendar years 2023 and 2024.  Any bill introduced in 2023 and not rejected is still alive in 2024.  (It dies and must be reintroduced after 2024.)

S138

On January 4, 2023, State Senator Sean Ryan, Brian Kavanagh, Iwen Chu and Julia Salazar (all Democrats) filed proposed law S138 to remove the National Rifle Association from the list of entities authorized to grant certificates as instructors in small arms practice.

S138 is the same as Assembly bill A0663

S138 was passed by the Senate on June 7, 2023 (41 to 20) and was delivered to the Assembly

Assembly has not ever taken a vote on it.

S138 was referred back to Senate Codes Committee

Note: The NRA has a decades long record of first-rate firearm instruction.  Why would it be removed from the list of eligible instructors for anything but political reasons?  This is an excellent example of the Democrat Party using its political power to punish those of which they disapprove.

S140

On January 4, 2023 State Senator Sean Ryan has also filed proposed law S140 which would revoke a license to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms for a conviction for failure to safely store rifles, shotguns, and firearms.

S140 was referred to Senate Codes Committee.

Note:  No conviction for any crime is necessary, just fail to store your firearm in accordance with NYS regulations and you would lose your 2A rights.  Sounds unconstitutional, but when has that ever stopped a Democrat gun grabber?

S6033

On March 27, 2023, State Senator Kevin Parker filed proposed law S6033 stating that “Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million. Failure to maintain such insurance shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner's registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.

S6033 was referred to Senate Insurance Committee.   

Note If you don’t have liability insurance you lose your 2A rights!  What’s next, needing liability insurance to exercise your 1st Amendment rights in case you offend someone?  Again, unconstitutional but that doesn’t stop the Democrats.

Here are three bills lurking in the background.  Do they have a chance of getting passed?  S138 got passed by the Senate and made it to the Assembly which is overwhelmingly Democrat but for some reason the Assembly Speaker did not bring it up for a vote.  The other two are sitting in Senate committees and could be acted upon at any time.

So, what do we do?

Democrats Kavanagh, Chu, Salazar and Parker all have districts in the NY City / Long Island area and are probably safe from 2A supporters effectively challenging them. 

However, Parker is known for violent rages and has been convicted for them and also accused of rape.  Even the far left New York Times editorial board wrote that that Parker was "known as the man with frightening rages that could erupt at any time and on almost any subject…Mr. Parker should be censured, and voters in central Brooklyn should start recruiting a qualified replacement.”

Will the Democrat Party do the right thing and replace him?  The seat would most likely still be in Democrat hands, in any case.

Sean Ryan’s Senate District 61 stretches from Buffalo's inner suburbs to the southwestern corner of Rochester and including parts of Erie and Monroe Counties and all of Genesee County.  Registration is 37.8% Democrat and 33.6% Republican, so it is relatively close.  But in 2022, Ryan won with 56.6% to 43.3% so there are probably Independents in the district who are closet Democrats.  Is he beatable with a strong candidate and support?

S138 passed the Senate on an almost straight party line vote; the only Republican to vote for it was Jack Martins, whose district is on the north shore of Long Island.  Martins is a different problem. His district registration is 40.4% Democrat to 28.4% Republican.  But in 2022 he defeated a Democrat incumbent 53.2% to 46.8%. 

Was Martins tossing his Democrat constituents a bone when he voted for S138.

The answer, again, is for 2A supporters (and others) to get motivated to vote in districts where there is a chance of victory.  Until Republican supporters of 2A get back a majority in the NY State Senate, we are in constant danger of having our 2A rights infringed.

Special Election on February 13th  by Tom Reynolds

Republican George Santos was elected to Congress from a Long Island district in 2022.  He’s memorable because he was ‘ethically challenged’ in the extreme and is now an ex-member if Congress.  (I know - I know – he was not alone in Congress in having ethics problems, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

A special election to replace Santos will be held on February 13th.

The Republicans currently have a very small majority in the House so the special election will have significant impact.  Given the Republicans’ small majority and with Republicans and Democrats sharply divided on gun control – as well as many other issues – this election is important to all Americans and of special interest to all SCOPE members.

Tom Suozzi is running on the Democrat ticket.  He said, “I’m proud of my F-rating from the NRA. We see these violent acts with guns happening much too often.”

The Brady Campaign and Giffords endorsed Suozzi and Moms Demand Action named him a ‘Candidate of Distinction’.  Brady, Giffords and Moms are all rabidly anti-2A organizations so it’s fair to say that Suozzi is not 2A friendly.

Mazi Melesa Pilip is running on the Republican ticket.  Being a political newcomer, there isn’t much available about her position on 2A.  One statement was that, on gun control, Pilip supports pro-gun interpretations of the Second Amendment, but makes clear the need for responsible regulations.

Suozzi’s campaign, in an appeal to Democrats, sees it as a negative when they say this about her, “Pilip is also running on the Conservative Party platform that opposes common sense gun reform, even red flag laws.”

Pilip spoke about gun policy in an interview with Spectrum News.  When asked about preventing school shootings, she said there are "already policies in place that we have to make sure that we coordinate between the federal and state government."

She favors an assault weapon ban, saying that while she respects the Second Amendment, she does not support automatic weapons.

So, we have one rabidly anti-2A candidate (Suozzi) running against one who is at least mildly pro 2A (Pilip).

A little about their background.

Mazi Melesa Pilip is an Israeli-American.  She was born in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel when she was 12 years old and later served in the Israel Defense Force's Paratroopers Brigade as a gunsmith. Pilip studied at the University of Haifa, where she earned a bachelor's degree in occupational therapy, and also at Tel Aviv University, where she earned a masters degree in diplomacy and security.

Pilip has been a registered Democrat since 2012, but ran for the legislature on the Republican ballot line, serving in New York's Nassau County Legislature since 2022.

Thomas Richard Suozzi is a politician, attorney, and accountant.  He had previously served eight years as the mayor of Glen Cove. He was the county executive of Nassau County from 2002 to 2009, when he was unseated by a Republican. He served as the Representative for New York's 3rd Congressional District from 2017 to 2023. 

In 2006, Suozzi ran unsuccessfully against Eliot Spitzer for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York. 

He retired from Congress to run again for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York in 2022, losing to incumbent governor Kathy Hochul.

Since leaving Congress in 2023, Suozzi has been a ‘strategic adviser’ to clients rather than a registered lobbyist, since he was barred from lobbying Congress for two years as a former member.

A SCOPE member lamented not knowing enough about a politician’s character.  Here is a little something.

For one brief second, Suozzi was a 2A supporter.  Complaining about then President Donald Trump, Suozzi seemed to promote armed rebellion against Trump.  Suozzi said, “And then, you know, this is where the Second Amendment comes in quite frankly.”

Suozzi took so much heat for that statement, his office tried to explain, “Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law.”

I wonder if he feels the same way with Biden as President?

Suozzi had other issues, too.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 is to prevent insider trading by Congress.  Ethics violations were lodged against Suozzi in 2021 and 2022 for failing to report $ millions in stock trades.  When Suozzi explained why he had not disclosed hundreds of stock trades in a timely manner, he told investigators: "Quite frankly, we have a lot going on in Congress. I have a lot of other stuff going on. And it's just not—ethics is a big priority for me. But…the…some of the formalities are not necessarily something I make a priority of."

Business Insider published "Conflicted Congress" (an investigation of lawmakers' stock trades and financial holdings).  Suozzi was one of only 13 lawmakers given a "Danger" rating.

In an amusing turn around, Democrats tend to run people based on race, gender, etc.  (VP Harris for example.)  But in this race, the Republican is a Black, Jewish, Ethiopian woman while the Democrat is a White male.  Will Democrats push diversity in this case?

One final thought.

This election is important to all of us because, when voting for any legislator, you are really voting for two people; the legislator and the head of the legislator’s party.  The latter might become the Speaker / Majority Leader due to the election and have enormous power over that legislative body.  A vote for Suozzi is a vote for a Democrat Speaker and a vote for Pilip is a vote for a Republican Speaker.  And you know which party’s leadership Is ant-2A.

If you are interested in donating to either’s campaign:

Mazi Pilip for Congress | Mazi for NY

Suozzi for Congress - Let's Fix This!

NEW LAWS TAKING EFFECT – JANUARY 2024 in NY State

Lots of laws took effect in January, covering more than just the 2^nd Amendment.  Here is a list of new laws that SCOPE could find.  We hope its not a partial list and there aren’t any more lurking out there.

With inflation eating up income, illegal immigrants flooding NY City and seeping into the rest of the state, crime increasing, NY citizens deserting NY for other states, high taxes, bureaucracies out of control and government agencies putting politics above all else, the NY legislature focused like a drunken sailor.  (With apologies to drunken sailors.)

Note: Bill numbers for the NY Senate and NY Assembly are shown first.

S.841-A    A.6177-A

Requires petroleum bulk storage facilities to paint tanks white or beige/cream to reduce emissions of air pollutants.

S.5685    A.4853-A

Enacts the final phase of Brianna's Law, requiring all operators of mechanically propelled vessels to complete a boating safety course.

A.3006-C   S.4006-C

Increases the minimum wage to $16 an hour in New York City and Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties and to $15 an hour in the rest of the state.

A.3006-C    S.4006-C

Increases the rent subsidy payable to a foster child living independently from $300 per month to $725 per month.

A.3006-C   S.4006-C

Requires the chief administrator of the courts to issue regular public reports on the demographics and charges of pretrial commitments at local correctional facilities.

S.4007-C     A.3007-C

Provides for insurance coverage for behavioral health services.

S.4007-C     A.3007-C

Clarifies the definition of a clinical peer reviewer for substance use disorders and mental health evaluations.

S.4007-C   A.3007-C

Provides for electronic visit verification for personal care and home health providers.

S.4008-C    A.3008-C

Changes the retention percentage of certain motor vehicle related fees collected by county clerks from 12.7 percent to 10.75 percent.

A.3009-C    S.4009-C

Establishes a permanent 30% metropolitan transportation business tax surcharge.

S.1331    A.4015

Provides for the synchronization of multiple prescriptions for recipients of medical assistance by allowing partial refills.

A.7690     S.7550

Requires the cure affirmation for an absentee ballot to be received by the board of elections within seven days.

S.7394-A     A.7632-A

Establishes the New York Early Mail Voter Act, authorizing registered voters to obtain early mail voting ballots through application to the board of elections; requires the state board of elections to establish and maintain an electronic early mail ballot application transmittal system through which voters may  apply for an early mail ballot online.

A.5948    S.6124

Requires a whistle to be carried on all vessels, rowboats, canoes and kayaks; and requires fire extinguishers and use of engine cut-off switches on certain vessels.

A.6480    S.6482-A

Allows an individual with disabilities or a disabled veteran to hold full-time or part-time positions for purposes of eligibility for recruitment for state employment.

A.5772    S.5162

Allows an affirmation by any person, wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, to be used in a civil action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit.

A.5994-B     S.536-A

Prohibits clauses restricting research about the health consequences of e-cigarettes and restricts the advertisement and promotion of electronic cigarettes.

S.5621-B      A.2873-B

Requires reporting of certain digital assets on the annual statement of financial disclosure filed with the Legislative Ethics Commission or the Joint Commission On Public Ethics.

S.454-A     A.3116-A

Directs counties to contact a veterans' organization to provide for the disposition of the unclaimed remains of a deceased veteran when such veteran has no next of kin or other person designated to provide for the disposition of his or her remains; develops an application process for veterans' organizations to receive reimbursement of costs associated with such funeral and burial services for indigent veterans.

S.2330-B     A.345-C

Requires the Department of Financial Services to make public any rate filing or application submitted by long term care insurance carriers; requires certain notices be provided to policyholders and certificate holders regarding premium rate increases.

A.783   S.2630

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Conservation to issue a certified nuisance wildlife specialist a deer cull permit after a review of the site-specific deer management plan and upon a finding that deer have become a nuisance, destructive to public or private property or a threat to public health or welfare.

S.2599    A.133

Establishes a dyslexia and dysgraphia task force and implements the findings of such task force.

S.4234-A    A.4055-A

Prohibits utility corporations from charging customers for gas or electric service which was rendered more than two months prior to the mailing of the first bill to the customer; requires utility corporations to provide a two-year history of charges in their bills.

S.7537     A.7761

Establishes the village incorporation commission to evaluate and make decisions regarding village incorporation elections.

A.1120      S.1746

Provides for the development and implementation of programs to prevent workplace violence in public schools.

S.5775     A.5639

Requires certain trains and locomotives to have a minimum crew size of two people.

S.3567-A    A.6050-A

Permits the sale or promotional gifting of certain complementary products for wine and spirits by retail licensees.

S.1902-A   A.1245-A

Requires notice to unemployment applicants of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program For Women, Infants And Children (WIC).

S.7020-B     A.10162-A

Establishes requirements for licensure as a histotechnologist.

S.5915     A.5347

Requires the Office For The Prevention Of Domestic Violence to distribute informational materials on recognizing economic abuse and the support available to survivors.

S.582        A.6798 

Prohibits the sale of sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite to any person under the age of twenty-one.

S.2683-A    A.4599-A

Allows charities to use a single table of unisex rates and a simplified calculation for maximum allowable rates for charitable annuities.

Lawsuits Aren’t All About Right and Wrong: Sometimes Strategy is a key factor.  by Tom Reynolds

Many SCOPE members – and 2A defenders in general – are confused by the number of lawsuits and rulings that are occurring.  There are some legal strategy decisions to be made which have nothing to do with right or wrong.  SCOPE would like to try to simplify some very complex behind-the-scenes issues and give you some insight into the decisions that must be made.

On December 12th, we wrote an email to members about the 2nd Circuit Court’s decisions on several lawsuits brought against N Y State.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - 2nd Circuit Decision (scopeny2a.org)  The decisions now faced in those lawsuits are typical of those faced by all 2A lawsuits, so let’s use it as an example.

Under this ruling, the following provisions on New York’s law are stopped by temporary injunction (enjoined):

• Requiring applicants to disclose social media accounts for review.

• The restrictions on carrying on private property that is accessible to the public, as well as the restriction on carrying in houses of worship.

• The “good moral character requirement” in place for those seeking a concealed carry permit. 

• The prohibition on concealed carry in so-called sensitive locations, a category that includes government buildings, airports, public playgrounds, schools, theaters, establishments that serve alcohol and Times Square.

Under this ruling, the following provisions of New York’s law are not enjoined and remain in effect for now:

2A advocates may look at the 2nd Circuit’s decisions and say those decisions that were not enjoined were wrong and let’s keep suing them.  But there are other considerations.

First, the recent decisions only dealt with temporary injunctions to stop enforcement of the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ (CCIA) while the court cases are being decided.  They did not decide the cases, themselves.  The ruling by the appeals court was at an early stage of the legal battle, which is seen as likely to wind up before the Supreme Court, again. 

Some other considerations:

NY and other blue states pass unconstitutional laws and basically say, ‘If you don’t like it, sue me.  I – the state – am going to run up your legal bill in an attempt to bankrupt your effort while I – the state – will operate on the bottomless taxpayer dime.’   

There is a business principle called “Opportunity Cost.”  Basically, if you use your resources (time, energy, money) on one thing, those resources are gone and will not be available for other things.  Each of these lawsuits will cost 2A advocates hundreds of thousands of dollars – approaching or exceeding a million dollars if they go to the Supreme Court.  What’s the best use of the limited financial resources available under the ‘Opportunity Cost’ principle? 

There are other factors.

Do the 2A litigants in these cases want to keep fighting for the injunctions or accept what victories and defeats we have and concentrate their efforts on winning the actual cases?  It’s been a year and a half just to get to this point and gun owners are still subject to much of CCIA’s unconstitutional laws.  (It was twelve years between the Heller decision and the Bruen decision.) 

The 2nd Circuit decision was made by a three judge panel, not the full 2nd Circuit court.  Do the 2A litigants want to appeal for a hearing on the injunctions before the full court or, if possible, go straight to the Supreme Court on the injunctions?  More time and more money, either way. 

Or do they stop fighting for injunctions and switch to fighting for the meat of the cases?

Until there is a final decision, we continue to be subject to these unconstitutional laws.  This is particularly acute in the Gazzola case which centers around retail stores. (Federal Firearms Licensees - FFL’s.) 

FFL’s are being attacked at both the federal and state level.  Federally by Biden’s  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) which is revoking FFL licenses at an unprecedented rate, many for minor technical violations.  Under NY State’s CCIA, NY State is driving FFL’s out of business.  (GOA-NY reports that we have lost seventy-three 2A businesses in NY State this year.)  Those are businesses that will never come back in a state that is generally unfriendly to all businesses and hates 2nd Amendment businesses, in particular.  The longer this drags out, the more FFL’s that will close.

Finally, as a general rule, the Supreme Court avoids making a ruling on a constitutional issue until it has “percolated”through the lower courts. Under “percolation,” the Supreme Court normally let’s stand a lower court ruling or injunction until multiple lower courts have weighed in on a legal question that the Court is bound to decide. 

Certainly, there are other issues and each case has its own peculiar circumstances.

SCOPE hopes that this has given you some insight into the behind-the-scenes decisions that must be made.  Few want to make these decisions and it would be nice if all decisions were limited to right-or-wrong, but they cannot be avoided.

COURTS LOOKING TO REVIEW 2ND AMENDMENT LAWSUITS

by Bohdan Rabarsky

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, several states would not ratify it (New York being one of them) unless a Bill of Rights was added.  These rights were vital to the well being of a newly formed country and not one of the Founders Era would ever have envisioned having to fight for those rights 250 years later. 

Welcome to the Biden Era.

Of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has been the most under attack for many years by those wanting to gain control of the ‘masses’. To accomplish that, they first had to disarm those masses, just as Stalin, Mao, Castro & Pol Pot had done.

Recently, court rulings have been striking down anti-gun regulations created by government agencies.  These rulings resulted from lawsuits brought by organizations and individuals against various state officials or federal government agencies.

A three judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled against the ATF’s 80 % Frame Rule, finding that the ATF overstepped it’s bounds in issuing it’s ruling. Fifth Circuit Delivers More Wins for Gun Owners, But Will They Stick at SCOTUS? – Bearing Arms

In another case, Garland v Cargill, SCOTUS has granted “certiorari”, which means they have agreed to review the case. In 2018, then President Trump used an Executive Order to ban bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting which had taken place at a music festival in Las Vegas. Donald Trump and his ATF overstepped their authority in banning the bump stocks and a lawsuit followed. The suit has worked its way through the court system in the 5th, 6th and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, before SCOTUS granted certiorari.

SCOTUS also granted certiorari to a 2nd Amendment case in NRA v Vullo. The court will decide whether the New York State Department of Financial Services violated the 1st Amendment Rights of the NRA. SCOTUS Grants Cert to Bump Stock Case – Bearing Arms

Government officials have found that, instead of trying to ban guns through legislation, which is never popular with the public, it’s easier to go after gun owners using state and federal agencies’ regulations.  This way, the government (state or federal) can use taxpayer funds while the gun owners or 2nd Amendment organizations have to raise funds to support the lawsuits. (The gun owner is paying for both sides of these lawsuits fighting for the God given right to bear arms.)

In addition, these agency regulations violate the ‘Separation of Powers” central to the U. S. Constitution, because the Executive branch is taking on legislative powers. 

Hopefully SCOTUS follows the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold.

A8443  by Tom Reynolds SCOPE sends out information on various gun control laws proposed federally or in NY State and usually these notices can be relatively brief and still get the message across.  But occasionally – or more often - a bill is proposed that is so outrageous and strikes so straight at the heart of the Constitution that it requires further explanation. Assemblyman Phillip Steck (Democrat 100th District – Schenectady Albany) has climbed that mountain when he proposed Assembly bill A8443. As many of us have unhappily experienced, NY State now requires a background check on purchases of ammunition which has resulted in frequent and unnecessary delays.  (All a part of Hochul’s plan?)  Many NY residents, with easy access to another state, have chosen to cross the border for ammunition purchases and bypass the NY background check and related fee.  (A reaction not unexpected by anyone.)   Under Assemblyman Steck’s bill, the NY Attorney General can bring civil and criminal actions in NY State courts against any NY State resident or the ammunition seller in another state, when ammunition is purchased in another state and it does not go through NY State’s background check. For example, a NY State resident in Waverly NY drives a couple miles south into Sayre PA and buys ammunition without undergoing a NY background check.  NY Attorney General (Leticia James) can have him and the seller arrested, in NY State. Or, a NY State snow birder in Florida buys ammunition in Florida, without a NY background check, and uses it there.  Leticia James could come after him and the seller under A8443. By the way, it is bureaucratic to get licensed to use the NY background system so an ammunition seller in another state has little incentive to do it.  And what about on-line purchases, which have to be accomplished through a NY FFL who would has to perform a NY background check.  Will the on-line seller also have to duplicate the NY background check to be legal under A8443? Basically, Steck wants to prosecute you if you legally (under the laws of 49 states and federal law) buy ammunition in another state. Imagine, for a moment, that NY State passed a law setting the maximum speed limit at 55 mph everywhere in NY State.  Afterwards, a NY State resident while in Pennsylvania drives 65 mph – where the speed limit is 65 MPH.  Using his logic, NY Assemblyman Phillip Steck believes the NY Attorney General should prosecute that motorist in NY State for exceeding the NY speed imit.  (After all, it would be good for ‘Climate Change’.) One of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of the U S Constitution was interstate issues.  The founders knew that a federal government was necessary to handle interstate issues.  But even in the 1780’s, who would have imagined a Phillip Steck? Article I Section 8 of the U S Constitution says that the U S Congress regulates interstate commerce.  Assemblypersons take an oath of office to, “support the Constitution of the United States…”  Can we anticipate an impeachment proceeding against Assemblyman Steck for violating his oath of office? F Y I, the related parts of the bill are as follows:  A08443 “The (N Y State) attorney general shall have the power and duty to…Seek and obtain injunctive relief to prevent any individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer from knowingly selling ammunition to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases ammunition on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization pursuant to section two  hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation. “ “The attorney general shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this  section  by  bringing  civil and criminal actions in the state courts of New York.” Obviously, SCOPE opposes this bill as should anyone who truly believes in the U S Constitution.

TAKE ACTION!

The Island of Romance, etc.  by Tom Reynolds

People my age will remember the hit song by the Four Preps about Santa Catalina Island (California): “The island of romance, romance, romance, romance…A tropical heaven out in the ocean covered with trees and girls.”

Apparently, Californians can even screw up a place like that!

Santa Catalina Island (or just plain Catalina Island) has a mule deer herd that was introduced on the island in the 1930's.  The island has an extended hunting season but the mule deer are ‘over producing’.

The Catalina Island Conservancy which manages 90% of Catalina Island–says that the mule deer population has grown to around 1,800 deer and they are destroying the island’s ecosystem, causing soil erosion and threatening native species.

Deer hunting is legal on the island but the permitting process is very bureaucratic and expensive. SCOPE is told that, if you want to hunt the island you have to use non-lead ammo and be a member of the Conservancy, which costs $65 per year. You have to have firearms liability insurance in the amount of $500,000. You must hold a public lands management tag for a cost of $100 if you are a resident of the island, while nonresidents pay $200. Daily vehicle or camper use on the island costs $45.   (It was easier to get there, back then, for the Four Preps: “40 kilometers in a leaky old boat, any old thing that'll stay afloat.”)

The hunting program allows 300-400 deer to be harvested, annually, but hunters only take about 244 deer. This isn’t enough to reduce the population to acceptable levels.  And the deer that are taken tend to be older males.  (Apparently, hunters prefer large Bucks rather than Does.  What a surprise - to no one who hunts.)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife backed a management plan that involves culling the herd, but it hasn’t been enough to stop population growth.

So…

White Buffalo Inc. will begin shooting the deer next fall. Hunters will use AR-15 style rifles with non-lead bullets, and the hunted deer will be left where they lay.  (They are using the hated ‘Assault Rifle, but in a sop to the Left they will use non lead bullets.)

It goes almost without saying that there are opponents of the hunt and they responded that the Conservancy should have done more to solve the barriers to successful hunts. (Ya think!)

The Coalition Against the Slaughter of Catalina Deer are circulating a petition to “Stop the Slaughter of Mule Deer on Catalina Island” which has gathered 15,863 signatures.

One group has proposed another option to the hunt; sterilizing the deer.

Before you laugh…

This option may sound familiar to New Yorkers as Cayuga Heights (Ithaca) had a huge deer problem and in 2012 they tried to address it by, primarily, sterilizing deer and they hired White Buffalo Inc. to also cull the herd.  Ithacans, of course, objected to shooting the deer, but they were overruled.

According to the Village of Cayuga Heights report in 2019*: “Having professionals cull the deer is expensive. Since 2013, we have spent $117,100 on camera surveys and $304,616 on White Buffalo.”  ($421,716 total.)

As best we can tell from the report, Cayuga Heights sterilized or culled about 225 deer, since the process began.  That’s about $1,900 per deer.

At this point, SCOPE members are saying to themselves that there is another way to cull the herd that will, in addition, bring in revenue and also provide food.  But the Democrat leadership is so anti-gun that they would rather bankrupt the state than admit that hunting is the answer to deer overpopulation.  This is the mentality we (and Californians) are facing.

*Deer Management - Village Of Cayuga Heights (cayuga-heights.ny.us)

Hamilton Speaks Today  by Tom Reynolds

Even before he had a Broadway Play about him, Alexander Hamilton was considered a really smart guy.  Amongst other things, his ‘Federalist Letters’ (along with James Madison and John Jay) helped secure passage of the Constitution.

On Wednesday, SCOPE wrote about the unconstitutional attempts to deny the American people the right to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice.  In a Letter from Phocion to the Considerate Citizens of New York On the Politics of the Day, Hamilton warned of something that sounds eerily familiar to what is currently happening. 

While he wrote this of the dangers of legislatures disenfranchising people, the principle also applies against government officials disenfranchising voters.  And when we are not allowed to vote for the candidate of our choice because he was illegally removed from the ballot, we are, in effect, disenfranchised.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nothing is more common for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwords prove fatal to themselves.  Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disenfranchisement and banishment by acts of the legislature.  The dangerous consequences of this are manifest.   If the legislature can disenfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction.  The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense. 

I wonder how many people seeing the play ‘Hamilton’ are appalled by current events?  Alexander Hamilton would be!

Trump Disqualified?  by Tom Reynolds

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled, in an unprecedented decision, to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. 

The Maine Secretary of State barred former President Trump from Maine’s primary ballot. The official statement on the Secretary of State’s website says that Trump: ”…is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment”. (Emphasis added.)

Both disqualifications are under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  That these were obviously partisan decisions that ignore the law and prior precedent goes beyond question.  (But that has never stopped the Left, so why would it now?)

A little more about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

First:

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.  The basis of Colorado and Maine’s decision was Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason.  The last sentence in Section 3 states: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability”. 

Congress removed that disability from most of the people covered.  The pertinent parts of Section 3 don’t exist anymore because the Amnesty Act of 1872 was passed by the 42nd United States Congress (voice vote in the House and 38-2 in the Senate.) 

The 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the American Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.”  (Note: The Presidency is NOT one of these exceptions that are still ineligible.) 

For their rationale, Colorado and Maine cited a law that does not exist anymore.

Second:

Amendment V states that no person shall: “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.”  Certainly, the right to run for the presidency should be covered by that. 

No federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ The only thing resembling a trial was Trump’s second impeachment - which acquitted Trump.  

There has been no due process of law.  (Another one of those constitutional issues the Left conveniently ignores.)

Third:

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment originally applied only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official who had previously taken an oath to support the U S Constitution.  Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3 both before and after the Amnesty Act of 1872. 

Fourth:

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”. 

Prior court rulings have held that Section 3 is not self-executing and Congress has never passed any federal law providing for enforcement, meaning that courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s Secretary of State have no legal authority under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  It is federal law and they cannot enforce Section 3 because they are not federal authorities and because Congress has not given anyone the power to enforce it.. 

Colorado and Maine decided to remove the constitutional right of American voters to make their own decision on who they believe should be president.

This election interference should swiftly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which should take this case in order to short-circuit all the similar meritless challenges that are being filed in numerous states to remove Trump from the ballot.

But this is more than just an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot, it is a blatant attempt to distract him from campaigning by tying him up in court cases that have no legal foundation.

It is also a message to all Americans; don’t disagree with Democrat run governments or they will get you.  The U S Constitution does not exist in “Blue states.”

And the Democrat media is saying that Donald Trump will destroy democracy if he is elected!  (Which ignores that the USA is a Republic.)

2024 A Happy New Year!  by Tom Reynolds

During World War 2, from 1939 through mid-1942, the Germans and the Japanese were on the offensive and scored many victories.  In 1942, the first early hints of change began to emerge.  After over three years of mostly defeats, on January 1, 1943, the allied leadership must have sensed there was an opportunity to turn the war around and win it.

Eighty one years later, entering the new year of 2024, we should also embrace the possibilities before us.  People who defend the U S Constitution - and especially the 2nd Amendment - should be thrilled at the possibilities before us.  After being on the defensive with only lawsuits as a way to defends us, we can strike back.  We have the equivalent of another D-Day in front of us, minus the violence and death. 

Every member of the NY State Senate is up for election.

Every member of the NY Assembly is up for election.

Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election.

NY Senator Kristin Gillibrand is up for election.

President Joe Biden is up for election.

We have the opportunity to turn the tide on the gun grabbers and anti-constitutionalists and take back control of our government from those that have used their government positions to thwart our rights and for personal gain. 

All we need do is get involved and vote.  Was Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act our Lexington & Concord?  Are Biden’s ATF regulations our Tea Party?  And most importantly, will this November’s elections be our Declaration of Independence? 

One of the great abilities of our Founding fathers was their understanding of - and the dangers of - big government.  The issues today are much the same as the Founding Fathers experienced 250 years ago.

In 1774, John Adams recorded a conversation he overheard: “What would you say, if a fellow should come to your house and tell you he had come to take a list of your cattle that Parliament might tax you for them at so much a head?  And how would you feel if he should break open your barn to take down your oxen, cows, horses and sheep.?”

“What would I say, I would knock him in the head.”

“Well, if Parliament can take down Mr. (John) Hancock’s wharf…they can take away your barn and my house.”

Many gun owners have not gotten involved because they believed when Biden and Hochul came after Modern Sporting Rifles, it didn’t involve them.  And when Biden and Hochul came after pistols and revolvers, it didn’t involve them.  But if Hochul can charge ammunition buyers for a background check that delays or denies their ammo purchases and drives gun stores out of business, that involves all gun owners.

Yes, if the government “…can take down Mr. Hancock’s wharf” they can take away your right to carry a firearm.  It may take them awhile, but they won’t quit - as opposed to many gun owners who won’t get started.

Our fathers and grandfathers fought and bled to stop socialist tyranny during World War 2 and then spent 45 years opposing communist / socialist tyranny.  We won.  Socialism lost.

Today, the socialists in the American government want to destroy every Americans’ rights under the U. S. Constitution, as those rights are a major impediment to the Left’s complete and permanent control.  There are too many examples to list of the Left’s attack on: the 1st Amendment; the 2nd Amendment; the 12th Amendment; and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.  (Before you go running to look them up, the last two have to deal with ‘We the People’ choosing the President of the United States of America.)

We can’t depend upon the Supreme Court to always be there to fight our battles. 

We have a marvelous opportunity to take back our Constitution and our government from the Constitution hating, gun grabbing swamps in D.C. and Albany.  Those of us already involved need to ramp up our efforts and, especially, to get those involved who have, till now, evaded their duty.  Make 2024 the year of the Constitution.        

When we were born in the United States, we won the lottery.  It’s time to pay for that ticket.