Pistol Braces  by Tom Reynolds The Biden Administration has mobilized many parts of the federal government for political purposes, not the least of which is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  Following Biden’s anti 2nd Amendment script, the ATF issued a new pistol brace rule that would reclassify millions of pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The change would mean millions of Americans could become felons on June 1st (next week) when the window closes to register, destroy, modify, or turn in their firearm equipped with a pistol brace to authorities. The Firearms Policy Coalition is seeking a nationwide injunction against the regulation based on two main issues: The ATF has no authority to make such a regulation because the ATF is sidestepping Congress and making a de facto law at the behest of the White House for political gain. The ATF also is violating the rule of lenity which states that if a law is ambiguous or unclear, it must be interpreted for the defense (the people, not the government). In addition, a resolution has been introduced in the House of Representatives disapproving of this rule: JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to ‘‘Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’ ’’.  Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to ‘‘Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’ ’’ (ATF final rule 2021R–08F), and such rule shall have no force or effect. The bill has almost 200 co sponsors but only four (4) are from New York State: Nick Langworthy, Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney, George Santos As one SCOPE member has nicely summed up: ‘BATFE is a corrupt rogue agency of the executive branch which operates as if there were no US Constitution’. Article I. Section 1. of the constitution states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress …" The Constitution does not grant to the Congress such powers permitting its delegation of its primary lawful function to the executive branch, let alone abdication to a rogue “political policy instrument” thereof. If the four co-sponsors are your Congressperson, be sure to thank them. If your congressperson is not a co-sponsor, be sure to ask them why not and encourage them (and Senators Schumer and Gillibrand) to vote for this resolution.

NYS Congressional Delegates

Culture Wars  by Tom Reynolds

Legal Insurrection’s web site recently raised an important point about the culture wars being waged. “You may not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.”  While only briefly mentioned, the culture war includes the war on the 2nd Amendment. 

One commenter described conservatives: “Our descriptor is that of a common-sense-constitutionalists, fearing government yet recognizing that some government is necessary, who basically want the happiness that comes with freedom FROM government.”

That leave-me-alone wisdom was expressed by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. US in 1928: ‘The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness…They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.’  (Emphasis added.)

Several commentators aptly summed up the situation (which can easily be applied to the 2nd Amendment) and the eventual conclusion if we do nothing:

“The left never sleeps. They will never, ever leave us alone” 

“Experience has taught that the left has a never-ending list of stupid, freedom-depriving ideas; the left will NEVER leave us alone.

There can be no doubt, when judged by the Left’s words and deeds, they do not believe in American values, culture and our Constitution and their number one non-belief is the 2nd Amendment. 

One commentator quoted John Philpot Curran “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”   

In other words, you better fight & defend your liberty or all those hard-earned freedoms will be taken without a moment’s notice.

Another commented that it’s not just guns that are caught up in the culture wars, “There is a culture war being waged by progressives against normalcy, decency, and sanity. We don’t have a choice but to fight it…if you’re demanding that I pretend a man is a woman, you are making me complicit in a lie. We don’t have to accept that.”

One commentator hit on a simple truth that we see every day, “When the left has no intelligent argument, the name-calling is always front and center. “

As 2nd Amendment defenders, we often refer to ‘the war on guns.’  But in reality, the war on guns is just a battle in the larger war on our culture, values and Constitution.  There can be no doubt, when judged by the Left’s words and deeds, they are coming to destroy all of them.

SCOPE has often spoken how non-voters are surrendering to the likes of A O-C, Joe Biden and Kathy Hochul and, in effect, saying to them, “Take our country and do with it what you will.”  The Legal Insurrection article paralleled that with the comment, “If you are unwilling to fight against the culture war on truth and sanity being forced upon you, despite your desire to just be left alone, then you have surrendered.”

Gun owners who are Conscientious Objectors in this culture war have, in fact, surrendered.  In the battle over the 2nd Amendment and the war on our culture, they are keeping us from saving our Constitution.  They refuse to get engaged on some self-serving grounds and refuse to believe that the Left will never leave us alone until all our rights – not just the 2nd Amendment – have been sacrificed on the altar of the Left’s quest for power and control.

As one commentator aptly put it: “It is the common fate of the indolent [those who may complain but won’t take action] to see their rights become a prey to the active.”

The odd thing is that we do not yet need our guns to win, we only need to get engaged and vote.

CCIA Changes  by Tom Reynolds

Our friends at GOA-NY sent SCOPE their summary of the state budget items which impact the CCIA.  The changes deal with some of the minor obvious issues with the CCIA but fall well short of dealing with many constitutional issues.

One change has to do with carrying in ‘houses of worship’.  However, it does not deal with the constitutional issue that the state is declaring private property a gun free zone and an owner must take affirmative action in order to carry - and only under the pretext of ‘security’.

It now exempts private property within a public park as a gun free ‘sensitive location’.  Theoretically, if you own a house in a state park you can now carry but if you step or drive off your property into the surrounding park…

GOA-NY tells us:

The Senate and Assembly have finally passed a budget. It has been delivered to the governor and it is commonly understood that the governor will sign the bills. One of the bills, S4005C / A3005C, makes changes to some of the laws put into place by the CCIA. Here is a non-comprehensive overview of the changes. The relevant section is part F (of the bill).

• Exemption from place of worship sensitive location for "those persons responsible for security at such place of worship" [1]

• Privately held land within a public park is excluded from the private park section of the definition of sensitive location.

• The "forest preserve" as defined in subdivision six of section 41 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law is excluded from the definition of public park as a sensitive location. [2] This effectively excludes parts, but not the entirety, of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks from falling under the public park sensitive location definition.

• Summer camps have a narrow exemption that allows them to maintain and use guns in some circumstances.

• Sensitive location exemption for hunting expanded and reworded. "persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to the environmental conservation law, and persons while lawfully engaged in hunter education training, marksmanship practice, marksmanship competition or training, or training in the safe handling and use of firearms, in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations"

• Sensitive location exemption for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.

• Sensitive location exemption for persons engaged in historical reenactments and motion picture or theatrical productions while in compliance with local, state, and federal law.

• Sensitive location exemption for persons while participating in military ceremonies, funerals, and honor guards

• Sensitive location exemption for storage or display of antique firearms, rifles or shotguns at museums and historic sites

• Sensitive location exemption for individuals traveling to or actively competing or training in biathlon, while complying with local, state, and federal law.

• Restricted location exemption for hunting. "persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to section 11-0707 and 11-0709 of the environmental conservation law"

• Restricted location exemption for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.

• Police and military exemption for mandatory unload and lock of rifles, shotguns, and firearms when left in a vehicle.

These changes will take effect immediately upon the governor's approval.

It appears that the changes to the body armor regulation contained within the governor's proposed budget did not make it to the final version. It is possible it is contained within another bill that I have not yet come across.

[1] This will affect and may possibly moot Spencer v. Nigrelli, Hardaway v. Nigrelli, and parts of Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, among others.

[2] ENV 41 9-0101 6. The "forest preserve" shall include the lands owned or hereafter acquired by the state within the county of Clinton, except the towns of Altona and Dannemora, and the counties of Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Oneida, Saratoga, Saint Lawrence, Warren, Washington, Greene, Ulster and Sullivan.

The War On Hunting  by Tom Reynolds

Biden's war on hunting continues.

The Biden administration is under fire for regulatory proposals that critics have warned could serve as a backdoor attack on hunting and could lead to more aggressive measures targeting hunting. According to experts and hunting industry officials, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is expected to publish draft hunting guidelines that would substantially curb the type of equipment sportsmen are allowed to use on federal refuge properties. The guidelines are, among other provisions, expected to expand the refuge area where lead ammunition and fishing tackle will be banned.

The background on this is from Fox News*:

A Trump administration rule expanded hunting and fishing on 2.3 million acres across 147 wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.

 In 2021, (during the Biden administration) The Center for Biological Diversity** sued the federal government over that rule.  Instead of defending the rule, the Biden administration asked the court to delay proceedings in the case.  In November 2022, Biden’s administration agreed to a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity that stipulated the government would take wide ranging steps to protect wildlife "harmed by expanded hunting and fishing" on national wildlife refuges. Under the settlement, the FWS promised to expand lead ammunition prohibitions across various refuges beginning in 2026. 

The Biden administration has since announced in federal filings its intention to prohibit recreational shooting on approximately 94,900 acres of lands managed by the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.

"This could extend beyond just the National Wildlife Refuge System under Fish and Wildlife Service," said Gabriella Hoffman, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Energy and Conservation. "I worry it could extend to the Bureau of Land Management,"she told Fox News Digital. "Once they're given a taste of bans, they're going to try to pursue it elsewhere because, again, they view hunters as an obstacle, even though hunters are largely the primary drivers of conservation."

Is Hoffman saying that the ban is only the unspoken first step on a wider ban on hunting and another step to neuter the 2^nd Amendment?  Nah.  Joe Biden would never do something like that.

Not to be outdone, New York State strikes again…

While attention was on the NY State budget, a lead hunting ammo ban bill passed the NYS Assembly (Bill A2084-A).  It prohibits the use of lead ammunition in the taking of wildlife on state-owned land and on land contributing surface water to the New York city water supply.

There is a companion bill in the NYS Senate, S04976-A.  If passed, these bills will take effect January 1, 2025.  The bills state:

Wildlife shall not be taken with the use of lead ammunition on:

wildlife management areas, state forests, forest preserves, state parks or any other state-owned land that is open for hunting;

               and not on

the land area contributing surface water to the New York city water supply.  

"…lead ammunition" shall mean any ammunition that contains one or more percent of lead by weight.

Not that hunters should distrust NY City politicians trying to rule the world from Albany but…what areas contribute surface water to the New York city water supply?

Per the NY Department of Environmental Conservation:  

The NYC watershed is located in Southeastern New York State. Most of the water is provided by precipitation (rain and snow) that falls within the watershed, flows to nearby streams, then is collected within the reservoirs. All of the 19 reservoirs and their major tributaries within the NYC Watershed Program are monitored continuously

Per the NY City Environmental Protection web page:

The watersheds of the three systems cover an area of almost 2,000 square miles, approximately the size of the State of Delaware.

Located in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties, the Croton system has 12 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes.

The Catskill system includes 2 reservoirs…The Catskill watershed is located in parts of Greene, Ulster and Schoharie Counties

The Delaware system, in parts of Delaware, Ulster and Sullivan Counties…includes 4 reservoirs.

Left unmentioned in these descriptions is that several reservoirs are within the Hudson River Basin.  So, does the Hudson River contribute surface water to the New York City water supply?  If it technically doesn’t now, will there be a redefinition at a  later date to include the Hudson River Basin?

And the next step will be: if it is good for NY City, why shouldn’t all municipal water systems and their tributaries also be ‘protected’ from lead ammunition?

The bills’ advocates will say that they do not ban hunting, only hunting with lead ammunition.  Ever noticed how much non-lead ammo is on your local gun store?  Guess what this will do to the price of non-lead ammunition?   

Write or call your State Senator and tell him / her how much you oppose S0496A.

*foxnews.com/politics/bidens-war-hunting-faces-blowback-republicanssportsmen-groups.

**The Center for Biological Diversity is an influential environmental group with assets exceeding $40 million that advocates for stringent federal wildlife protections.

Buy Backs  by Tom Reynolds

The Left likes to do things that make them feel good but accomplish nothing – other than costing the taxpayers more money.  Gun buy backs are one of those things.

On April 21st, the anti-gun reporting organization The Trace reported that gun buy backs accomplished little if anything, other than making leftists feel good.  It said that the statistical results of these buy backs: “…like the number of participants, how many guns were collected, and public awareness” are basically meaningless. 

What about gun buy backs’: “impact on homicides, suicides, and nonfatal shootings and assaults?”

According to the Trace, “The most rigorous studies of gun buyback programs have found little empirical evidence to suggest that they reduce shootings, homicides, or suicides by any significant degree in either the short- or long-term.”

In fact, The Trace thinks they may actually be a negative: “Some researchers and advocates worry that, by briefly acting on the public’s desire for intervention, gun buybacks could be taking attention and resources from other reforms that are more likely to have an impact.”

Which brings us to NY’s Attorney General, Letitia James.  She loves gun buy backs because they allow her to look like she’s doing something about violent crime without actually doing anything.

While SCOPE was having its annual Members’ Meeting this past weekend, James was sponsoring another gun buy back?  Sorry we missed it.

James’ office said that more than 3,000 guns were surrendered at nine buyback locations throughout the state.

One quarter of the firearms (751) were turned over in Syracuse. James said in a statement: "Every gun that we removed out of Syracuse homes and off the streets is a potential tragedy averted and another step in protecting communities throughout New York State."

Since James said, “Every gun that we removed out of Syracuse homes and off the streets is a potential tragedy averted” it is fair to wonder about the potential tragedies that would have been averted if the police and resources working the buy backs were instead actively being used to stop crime.

Syracuse police crime statistics show a 133% jump in homicides in the first four months of this year compared to the same time frame last year.  Can we expect a big drop in those statistics now that 751 guns are off the street?  Can a cow jump over the moon?

It is estimated there are more than 400,000,000 guns in the USA.  Now there are 399, 997,000.

Put another way, James removed .0000075 (8 millionths of 1 percent) of all the guns in the USA. 

Remember The Trace’s earlier statement about these meaningless efforts, “… taking attention and resources from other reforms that are more likely to have an impact.”  I wonder if James is going to do a cost benefit analysis of her efforts.  (Actually, I don’t wonder.)

I also wonder how many criminals, MS13 members, flash robbers, gangbangers, carjackers, etc. turned in their weapons?  (Actually, I don’t wonder about that, either.  That’s another statistic James’ office won’t be publicizing.)

Bear Spray  by Tom Reynolds

Nick Kristof (a CNN contributor) has an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “A Gun in the Home Makes Murder More Likely, Not Less.”

Kristof unequivocally states that in the United States, we suffer from: ”…a mass delusion that a gun in the home makes us safer.”  (Those that attended the Member’s Meeting on Saturday heard speaker and psychiatrist Doctor Robert Young say that ‘it ain’t necessarily so’.)

He uses the terms “delusion” and that it’s our “perceptions of rising crime” to convince us that crime isn’t rising and we are simply being misled (probably misled by the NRA and countless news articles?)

Kristof further states that, “People may choose to have firearms for hunting or target practice or to protect livestock from predators …but given the elevated risk, personal safety is not a good reason to acquire a gun.”  (Emphasis added.)

Oh yeah?  So what is Kristof’s alternative?

“…bear spray instead of a gun.”

He continues, “As a backpacker, I carry bear spray in grizzly country because it’s more effective than a handgun at stopping one of these bears if it charges; the same may be true of stopping a home invader, and certainly the consequences of a mistake aren’t deadly.”

Kristof is obviously not a reader of SCOPE Emails where we point out that, according to numerous studies, guns are used somewhere between 700 thousand and 3 million times a year for defensive purposes.

And then, as one sharp-eyed SCOPE member pointed out, Kristof did not research the laws in NY state.  NYS Penal Law section 265.50 indicates that you can have a pocket size self-defense spray device.  But, NYCRR section 54.3 says that a self-defense spray shall not contain more than 0.7% by total weight Capsaicinoids. 

Bear spray contains a greater amount. (Counter Assault Bear Deterrent is 2.0%)

Oops!

Also notice he uses the term: “..may be true.”  The Left is infamous for inserting may, might, could etc. in a way that makes it sound factual.  And, of course, they never point out that their position: “may not be true.”

As to bear spray being more effective than a gun, there are differences of opinion.

This articles votes for bear spray.

Does Bear Spray Really Work? — CleverHiker | Backpacking Gear Reviews & Tutorial 

This article votes for a gun.

Bear Spray Fails Again in Canadian Bear Attack, Ends with Pet Dog Killed (ammoland.com)

Remember Kristof also said: “..the consequences of a mistake aren’t deadly.”  The holder of a can of Bear Spray that didn’t work may disagree.

So, as usual, the NY Times makes a ‘factual’ sounding statement that should be labelled as maybe.

Then, there is a potential issue with bear spray that also goes unmentioned when the NY Times rages against ‘large capacity magazines’: what if you are being attacked by multiple assailants?

One Day’s News  by Tom Reynolds

A new study showed that birth rates dropped during the COVID epidemic. 

Politically liberal states (and Washington D.C.)  had the lowest fertility rates.

Conservative states had the highest fertility rates.

Brad Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia said, “Heading into COVID, we already saw that fertility was higher in red America than in blue America.”

So, while liberals are fretting over the end of the world, conservatives are “otherwise occupied.”

Unfortunately, conservative gun owners seem to be ‘otherwise occupied’ on election days.  And since women are buying guns in record numbers, we can’t blame just the guys. 

C’mon, give it a break for one day to save your country.

On the same day as the above report, it was noted that the liberal leaders of New York were intentionally ‘controlled burning’ acreage in Steuben County to help preserve the Rattlesnake population.  Apparently, fertility rates in Rattlesnakes are more important to liberals than fertility in liberals.

This highlights a main difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe in government assistance for everything while conservatives just want to be left alone as we know what to do.  Which also gives us a clue as to why the liberals want more immigrants in this country.  Given current fertility trends, liberals – like Rattlesnakes - are putting themselves in danger of extinction and need government assistance to reproduce. 

And on the same day, Joe Biden announced that he wants to run again for President in 2024. 

One of his reelection statements was; “Personal freedom is fundamental to who we are as Americans.” 

If you were wondering about his commitment to personal freedom, amongst the many ‘personal freedoms’ he wants to ban are: ‘assault weapons’, fossil fuels, gas stoves and non-electric cars.  He categorizes parents speaking at school board meetings as terrorists, not 1^st Amendment freedoms, and his administration works with media companies to label opposition views as misinformation.

In his defense, he does believe that arson, sedition and rioting for liberal causes are freedoms to be protected.  And he is also firmly against government snooping into his family’s business dealings with China, Ukraine, etc.

But it could be worse.  We could be France.

Three people face the possibility of a criminal conviction at the hands of French prosecutors after giving President Emmanuel Macron the middle finger, reports in local media have claimed. It was said to have been given while Macron was touring the country in a desperate attempt to regain public favor in the wake of his pension law changes and the subsequent riots.

With their gesture, the three broke a French law that forbids statements that “affect the personal dignity or the respect owed to a public official.”  They will all face trial in September.  Under the French Criminal Code such an offence carries penalties including a fine of 15,000 euros and up to one year in prison

Let’s go Bran….oops

Polls, Studies and Other Lies  by Tom Reynolds

We are constantly barraged with the results of polls and scientific studies on guns, climate, presidential approval ratings, etc.  It’s fun to look at some of those studies which raised angst in past years and remember them the next time you see a headline blasting out predictions of doom.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org) compiled the past Climate Change predictions (1 to 27).   The rest of the predictions include the links to the scientific studies and media reports on which they are based. 

1.     1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

2.     1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 

3.     1970: Ice Age By 2000

4.     1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By1974; Food Rationing By 1980 

5.     1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

6.     1972: New Ice Age By 2070

7.     1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

8.     1974: Another Ice Age?

9.     1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life

10.  1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

11.  1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

12.  1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

13.  1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

14.  1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

15.  1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (NOPE)

16.  1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

17.  1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019

18.  2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

19.  2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat & Dairy

20.  2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

21.  2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

22.  2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

23.  2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

24.  2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’

25.  2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

26.  2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015

27.  2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’

 

·       1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

·       1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

·       1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

·       1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years

·       1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s

·       1980: Peak Oil In 2000

·       1996: Peak Oil in 2020

·       2002: Peak Oil in 2010

·       2006: Super Hurricanes!

·       2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

·       1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

·       1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

·       1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish

·       1970s: Killer Bees!

·       1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production

·       1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century

·       1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum

·       1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980

·       1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018

·       2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

·       2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

·       2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Lawsuits Everywhere  by Tom Reynolds

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and other acts* have generated a large number of lawsuits against Governor Hochul’s attempts to do away with 2nd Amendment protected rights.  Here are some of them, with a short description.  (There are probably more but with new ones keep popping up it is hard to keep track.)

Five cases for a Restraining Order stopping enforcement of CCIA were heard in tandem at the Second Circuit on March 20th.  No decision yet on them.

• Antonyuk II v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA on almost everything on 2nd & 1st Amendments issues
• Christian v Nigrelli, challenges CCIA rules about Concealed Carry on private property (NY Penal Law 265.01-d)
• Gazzola v. Hochul, challenges a multitude of CCIA’s Federal Firearms Licensee rules
  Certiorari hearing to move case directly to SCOTUS heard on April 21st 2023 and decision scheduled on April 24th 2023

• Hardaway v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA’s rules about Concealed Carry in houses of worship as a 2nd Amendment violation
  Hardaway speaking at Niagara County SAFE meeting on May 9th at Newfane Community Center.
• Spencer v. Nigrelli, challenges CCIA’s rules about Concealed Carry in houses of worship as a 1st Amendment violation

Other lawsuits challenging CCIA rules about Concealed Carry in houses of worship (NY Penal Law 265.01-e)

• Bleuer v. Nigrelli, challenges rules against Concealed Carry in houses of worship.
• Goldstein v. Nigrelli, challenges rules against Concealed Carry in houses of worship.
• New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom + Numerous Churches vNigrelli, challenges rules against Concealed Carry in houses of worship.

Lawsuits challenging long times to get licenses

• Meissner v NYC, challenges the NY Law 400-00 (4-b) which says the licensing officers can take 6 months to process licenses.
• Giambalvo v Suffolk County, challenges as unconstitutional the 2-3 years Suffolk County estimates it will take to process licenses.

Other lawsuits

• NYSRPA II v. Nigrelli, challenges multiple parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.
  This is a follow up to the successful NYSRPA v Bruen case which sent Hochul into a frenzy of unconstitutional legislation.

* Four (4) Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022, as follows:

• Bill S.9407-B – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. June 30, 2022);
• Bill S.9458 – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. August 30, 2022);
• Bill S.4970-A – signed June 6, 2022 (eff., generally, June 30, 2022); and,
• Bill 51001 – signed July 1, 2022 (eff., generally, September 1, 2022)

A Concurrence Worth Read  by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday, we wrote about the 5^th Circuit’s decision on Domestic Violence Restraining Orders and the pressures on judges to grant those orders.  Today, we would like to deal with the 5th’s decision as it reflects the NYSRPA v Bruen decision, which reemphasized how important “Bruen” is to our 2nd Amendment rights. 

Judge James C. Ho wrote in his concurrence:

“The right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized as a fundamental civil right.  Blackstone saw it as essential to ‘the natural right’ of Englishmen to ‘self-preservation and defence.’” 

“But the Second Amendment has too often been denigrated as “a second-class right”.  In response, the Supreme Court has called on judges to be more faithful guardians of the text and original meaning of the Second Amendment.  Our court today dutifully follows the framework recently set forth in N.Y. State Rifle. It recognizes the absence of relevant historical analogues required to support the Government’s position in this case. I am pleased to concur.”  (Emphasis added.)

In addition, Judge Ho’s concurrence takes a shot at recent changes in bail laws that leaves dangerous criminals free to roam the streets.  Judge Ho’s concurrence is worth reading by all who would protect the 2nd Amendment and also by those that believe the recent bail law changes have abandoned the idea of protecting innocent citizens.  It is quoted below, without the footnotes and legal references:

“I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence, as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.”

“Our Founders understood that those who commit or threaten violence against innocent law-abiding citizens may be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. They knew that arrest and incarceration naturally entails the loss of a wide range of liberties—including the loss of access to arms.”

So, when the government detains—and thereby disarms—a member of our community, it must do so consistent with the fundamental protections that our Constitution affords to those accused of a crime. For example, the government may detain dangerous criminals, not just after conviction, but also before trial. Pre-trial detention is expressly contemplated by the Excessive Bail Clause and the Speedy Trial Clause. And it no doubt plays a significant role in protecting innocent citizens against violence.”

“Our laws also contemplate the incarceration of those who criminally threaten, but have not (yet) committed, violence. After all, to the victim, such actions are not only life-threatening—they’re life-altering. “

“In sum, our Founders envisioned a nation in which both citizen and sovereign alike play important roles in protecting the innocent against violent criminals. Our decision today is consistent with that vision. I concur.”

__________________________________

By an interesting coincidence, this hit yesterday’s (Thursday’s) news, the same day we sent our e mail about Restraining Orders.

Katie Porter – an anti gun California Democrat Congresswoman - is a possible replacement if Diane Feinstein caves to pressure and resigns.

On April 13th, Fox News reported that her ex-husband: “said he does ‘not recant’ his domestic abuse allegations against the congresswoman after her campaign said that he did.  The allegations against Porter include claims that she dumped hot potatoes on her then-husband’s head and smashed a glass that led to him being cut by flying shards. Porter has separately faced accusations of running a toxic, emotionally abusive workplace by former staffers.”

“According to divorce documents received by Fox News Digital, Porter and her ex-husband, Matt Hoffman, both filed domestic violence restraining orders against each other after an April 2013 altercation at the home they shared while legally separated.”

It’s not known if porter had a gun but many California Democrats (and especially Governor Gavin Newsome) practice do as I say and not as I do.