Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004  by Tom Reynolds

The Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 is described by Joe Biden as effective while others refer to as not effective.  Here are portions of the report for you to judge for yourself.    

The Department of Justice funded a study by Christopher S. Kopher titled: ‘Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’.  It was published in 2004.

The following description comes directly from the report:

Enacted on September 13, 1994, Title XI, Subtitle A of the ‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’ imposed a 10-year ban on the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of certain semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons (AWs). The AW ban is not a prohibition on all semiautomatics. Rather, it is directed at semiautomatics having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense.

The ban was based on cosmetic features.                                                                                                            Per the report (emphasis added):  The gun ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons’ operation.

The report uses the term Assault Weapon and Semi-Automatic Weapon interchangeably.  Many people are confused by the use of the term ‘Assault Weapon’ and identify that term with an ‘automatic’ weapon (machine gun).  That confusion is encouraged by the Left as it helps create an untrue paradigm that benefits their anti-2^nd Amendment biases. 

The ban and the report also used the term ‘silencer’ instead of its correct term ‘suppressor’.  The Hollywood image that a ‘suppressor’ is almost soundless is so far from reality as to be laughable, but that image contributes to public misunderstanding of its true nature

The ban covered 3 types of Assault Weapons (all semi-automatics).  This description is taken directly from the report:   

Weapon Category Military-Style Features (Two or more qualify a firearm as an assault weapon)

Semiautomatic pistols accepting detachable magazines:

1) ammunition magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

2) threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash hider, forward handgrip, or silencer

3) heat shroud attached to or encircling the barrel

4) weight of more than 50 ounces unloaded

5) semiautomatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Semiautomatic rifles accepting detachable magazines:

1) folding or telescoping stock

2) pistol grip that protrudes beneath the firing action

3) bayonet mount 4) flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

5) grenade launcher

Semiautomatic shotguns:

1) folding or telescoping stock

2) pistol grip that protrudes beneath the firing action

3) fixed magazine capacity over 5 rounds 4) ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine

In general, the AW ban does not apply to semiautomatics possessing no more than one military-style feature.

The ban contained important exemptions.                                                                                                        AWs manufactured before the effective date of the ban were “grandfathered” and thus legal to own and transfer.

‘Assault Weapons’ are rarely used in crimes.                                                                                                Per the report (emphasis added): Assault Weapons (AWs) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. 

AWs and other guns equipped with Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs) tend to account for a higher share of guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings, though such incidents are very rare.

Even the highest estimates, which correspond to particularly rare events such mass murders and police murders, are no higher than 13%. Note also that the majority of AWs used in crime are assault pistols (APs) rather than assault rifles (ARs).

Why are ‘assault weapons’ rarely used in crimes.                                                                                        Per the report: The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors. Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns…Also, AWs are more expensive…and more difficult to conceal than the types of handguns that are used most frequently in crime.

The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed. 

During the period studied, there was a decline in handguns used in crimes but an insignificant change in the use of the ‘infamous’ Assault Rifle.   This was shown by the results of the study (emphasis added):

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

Predictions are tenuous .

Per the report (emphasis added):  Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

The study takes a shot (pun intended) at the exaggeration of other studies: Further the figures reported in some studies prompt concerns about exaggeration of AW ownership (perhaps linked to publicity over the AW issue during the early 1990s when a number of these studies were conducted), particularly among juvenile offenders, who have reported ownership levels as high as 35% just for ARs (Sheley and Wright, 1993a)

Even so, most survey evidence on the actual use of AWs suggests that offenders rarely use AWs in crime.

By most estimates, AWs were used in less than 6% of gun crimes even before the ban. Some may have perceived their use to be more widespread, however, due to the use of AWs in particularly rare and highly publicized crimes such as mass shootings (and, to a lesser extent, murders of police).

One final thought--  While Biden and Hochul want to ban ‘Assault Weapons’, the following statistics come from a recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll:

31 percent of adults report owning guns.

Of those, the poll found that 20 percent own an AR-15 rifle. 

“Taken together, the polls find that 6 percent of Americans own an AR-15, about 1 in 20…The data suggests that with a U.S. population of 260.8 million adults, about 16 million Americans own an AR-15.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has previously estimated that there are over 24.4 million AR-15s and similar rifles—known as “modern sporting rifles”—in civilian hands as of 2022. 

So, somewhere between 16 and 24 million Americans own an AR 15 rifle.  That qualifies as ‘in common use’.  But Biden and Hochul want to ban them.

History Lessons from Our Founders  by Tom Reynolds

The founding fathers understood politics, human nature and, most of all, political human nature.  (In addition to being patriots, most of them were also politicians, so they had the inside story.)  They also read lots of history and were familiar with the tactics of tyrants.  This led them to fear a big powerful government that could be used to oppress its citizens.  In order to prevent the United States from following in the footsteps of many failed states that had become dictatorships, they designed a constitution that limited the powers of the federal government to only those specified in the U S Constitution.  (Amendment X.) 

But that wasn’t enough since tyrants would probably ignore the Constitution and use the enormous powers of the government to consolidate their power, to the detriment of U S citizens.  So, within the Constitution, they devised a system of ‘checks and balances.’  The three branches of government have separate constitutional powers intended to stop any ’runaway’ branch.  It was assumed that each branch would jealously protect their powers and by default protect the citizens of the U S A. 

With the specific goal of further protecting citizens from their government, the founders split power between state and national governments.  Certain powers are the domain of the federal government, others are specifically reserved to the state governments and some they share.  But the federal government is supreme when there is a conflict.  (Article VI of the Constitution.)

Then, to clear up any confusion whether federal constitutionally protected rights also applied to states, Amendment XIV was passed, extending federally protected rights to the state level.

The United States Constitution is based on protecting all citizens from being persecuted by the government.  This has been recently reinforced by the Democrats, though not their intention, when chanting in unison, “no one is above the law”; which means everyone should be treated equally under the law.  We heartily agree.

U S citizens could rest easy for over 230 years, knowing the Constitution protected them from their federal government.  Not perfectly, but pretty well.  But some things happened and we are now faced with a crisis; the government’s powers are being used to crush those who oppose it. 

How did this happen under a constitution meant to stop it?

For exactly the last 90 years, a fourth branch of government has been growing as states gave up their powers in order to belly up to the federal financial trough.  (That the federal government had to print money to fill up that trough is another story for another day.)  This led to that fourth branch of government to which Congress ceded ever-increasing power.  The ‘Swamp’ makes rules and decides who gets the money and how it is distributed.  (The Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.) 

With the growth of federal power, checks and balances were being lost.  The jealously with which each branch protected its own powers became less of an issue since even the minority party now had tremendous perks, privileges and pay.  Big government is good for those in big government.  The minority party publicly opposed the majority party, even if their hearts were not in it.  (In fairness, some people’s hearts were in it, but not the leadership.)

Then, one party gained control of two of the three branches at the federal level and all three branches at the New York State level.  No checks and balances in NY State and only the Supreme Court in D C, prior to the last election. 

That majority party centers around the socialist concept of equity. (Socialism’s unspoken reality is that equity means all people - except the politically connected – end up equally poor). 

What also goes unspoken is that Socialism requires a central government not constrained by the U S Constitution.  (This effort to do away with ‘checks and balances’ was aided by a U. S. Supreme Court decision called ‘One Man One Vote’; but that too is another story for another day.) 

Socialism requires its citizens to be quiet and not spread ‘misinformation’ about Socialism, which runs afoul of the 1st Amendment.

Since they will be doing things that might get them shot, Socialism also requires that citizens be disarmed, which runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

Now you have a short history lesson in why Socialism and the Constitution are not compatible.

Why this history review?

The first three issues put the United States on a rapid march to Socialism, sponsored and protected by the Democrat Party, until a fourth event happened; Donald Trump was elected president.  Trump dared call the Swamp the Swamp and put the brakes on the 90 year long march to Socialism.  He believed in his oath to, “preserve protect and defend the Constitution”.  This made him, in the eyes of the Left, the most dangerous man in the country and he and any followers had to be more than stopped, they had to be destroyed.  The Left’s message is that if you opposed them, you will be crushed, without mercy, and not even a billionaire ex-president, is beyond their reach.

In the United States, the government is supposed to investigate the crime and if that leads to a man (or woman) so be it. 

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.  “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast.     

On March 31st, Newsweek reported, “Bragg…explicitly campaigned for office on a promise to ‘get Trump.’”  It sounds like Beria would be proud of Bragg.   

On July 5, 2021, the Intelligencer reported that Bragg…campaigned on a platform of criminal-justice reform, saying he would not prosecute most minor offenses and misdemeanors.  It was obvious that anyone named Trump was the exception to Bragg’s promise not to prosecute minor offenses. 

Newsweek further reported, “And it is hard to ignore the sordid fact that under his watch, New York City's crime rate skyrocketed by 22% last year, even as Bragg's office downplayed prosecution of violent crimes.”

So, while Bragg fiddled with Trump, Manhattan burned.

If someone commits a crime, they should be punished.  But twisting “minor offenses” into a low-level felony in order to punish a political opponent is not what the U S criminal justice system is about and it is not what America is about.  We don’t do political prosecutions, except in deep blue states where there is no down side to ignoring the Constitution. 

In addition, the election laws are federal laws and both the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Department of Justice have investigated and found no offense.  I might add, both are populated by denizens of the Swamp so their findings are particularly damning to Bragg.  Not that he cares.

There is another change, the U S government does not have a liberal Left majority any more.  Congress needs to aggressively step in and put Bragg and his office under a microscope for judicial misconduct and selective prosecution.  That won’t happen in corrupt-to-the-ears Manhattan, although it should.  Let the Left know that “checks and balances” are back.

Will the average non-involved non-voting citizen and gun owner finally get the message that a leftist government isn’t going to leave them alone?  They could be next after just the slightest slip.  If so, perhaps some good will come out of a disgraceful situation.

Trump Indictment  by Tom Reynolds

The Left is so worried by Donald Trump and those that support him that they twice impeached him.  The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office, but the second impeachment came after Trump left office and was so extreme that even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to participate. Now, the Left are so afraid that Trump will run and win in 2024 that the Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg has trumped up criminal charges against him.

Just as important to the left, they do not want anyone to forget that if you oppose the Left, you will be punished and no one, even a billionaire ex-president is beyond their reach.  This has been a highly visible effort over the past few years: General Michael Flynn, George Papadapoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort and others were all subject to politically motivated investigations designed to punish and bankrupt them for working for Trump.  If the Left can go after a billionaire ex-president, even if not successful, what chance will an ordinary citizen have?  That’s the lesson the Left wants learned by all who oppose them.

As Trump has said before, they are really going after us and he is standing in the way. How many of us would have the money to defend ourself against the federal government with its unlimited funding?  This must be stopped, now.

In the Left’s latest effort, Donald Trump has been indicted by a NY City D A and is scheduled to be arrested on Tuesday.  What he is charged with has not been released but there are numerous leaks from Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s office (in spite of it being illegal to leak Grand Jury actions).

Whether or not you like Trump, based on what we know:

There is no there, there.

One of the ‘crimes’ involves a payment to a woman (or women) not to disclose an affair with Trump.  The payment was not made with campaign funds but the Left claims it was a crime not to be reported as a campaign contribution. 

Personal payments for what would normally be personal expenses are not usually reportable as campaign contributions, even if they might help the campaign.  For example: if immediately before a campaign event, Kamala Harris gets her hair done and in the unlikely event she pays for it herself, it would not be a campaign contribution since getting her hair done is a normal (dare I antagonize the gender police by saying) female activity. 

Campaign related reporting issues are usually remedied without a lawsuit - unless you are Donald Trump.

But here is the real killer: both the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Department of Justice reviewed the situation and both declined to pursue what is a federal issue, not a state issue.  D A Bragg is not a federal official.  Not only is this case weak but the D A not having standing on a federal issue is a basis for appeals that will probably be heard before any trial.   

Through some as yet unknown legal gymnastics, Bragg is trying to twist this into a state case.

Trump’s alleged payments are alleged to have been classified under legal fees on business records.  In this case, it’s arguable, that legal fees are a legitimate interpretation of the tax law and the normal – nonpolitical – remedy is to reclassify it and pay any resulting taxes.

A second issue that might be raised by Bragg, that has arisen in the past, is Trump misstating his worth on loan applications.  But no lenders had come forward to join Bragg.  Probably because the lenders do their own evaluations of Trump’s assets and do not rely on his statements, correct or not.  (Remember when you got a mortgage on your house, the bank did its own appraisal.  And you were borrowing a lot less money than Trump.)

It's reported that Trump will be charged with 30 crimes.  This is known in non-legal circles as throwing everything against the wall and desperately hoping that something sticks.

Using government resources to get at a political opponent.

Bragg ran for office on the platform of getting Trump.

Letitia James ran for NY Attorney General on the platform of getting the NRA.

So much for justice being non-political.

Government resources are not supposed to be used for political purposes.  Isn’t that ‘prosecutorial misconduct’?

Since Trump is a legitimate candidate to run for President, doesn’t this qualify as election interference, which is a crime?  Remember all the noise about Russian interference with our elections?  Are Manhattan D A’s exempt from election laws?

No one is above the law (except Democrats)

The FBI Director Comey admitted that Hillary committed campaign finance crimes but he said that no prosecutor would prosecute them.  End of case.

The Biden crime family, and especially Hunter, has been influence peddling for years but the FBI couldn’t find time to check out the computer-from-hell for two years.  A business partner of the Bidens has implicated the family in influence selling.  Nothing to see here. 

What about Joe’s threat, when VP, to withhold funds from Ukraine unless it fired a prosecutor going after Hunter?  Trump was impeached for less.

The Clinton Foundation would seem to be in violation of laws regarding foundations but never prosecuted.

So, in worse cases, the legal system is silent.  Politics involved? Isn’t it selective prosecution / enforcement?

Picking a jury

How do you pick a jury in NY City that is not prejudiced?

 Presumably, anyone who voted for or against Trump will be disqualified and since the NY media is so anti-Trump, how will they get a juror without an existing attitude? They will need a jury of twelve homeless drunks that have spent the last 7 years in a stupor. 

 Even if they could find twelve jurors, seeking to convict a former president for marginal conduct may strike some potential jurors (even ones who dislike Trump personally) as a bridge too far.

Gag Order

Commentators are suggesting that the judge will impose a gag order.  A judge wants to prevent a presidential candidate from speaking about an issue that will affect his campaign!  Forget that pesky 1st Amendment when pursuing leftist goals!

Since we know a lot about this case based on leaks of confidential Grand Jury sessions, which most likely came from the D A’s office, it seems as if the judge should do some investigating of the D A’s office for a crime.  Wouldn’t that be interesting!  Don’t hold your breath.

Other efforts

Knowing that this effort will probably fail, it is being reported that other government bodies are working on cases against Trump.  Some of the leftist media are saying that these other charges are stronger than Bragg’s charges.  That’s a low bar. 

The New York judiciary

Judges at the appeals level are nominated by the governor and approved by the state Senate.  Want to guess how many conservatives sit on the appeals court?

The issue is, if Trump should lose at a prejudiced trial level, he might have to go through two levels of appeals in NY courts dominated by Cuomo and Hochul judges before he gets a fair hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It could take years. 

Would the Left like to see Trump tied up in lawsuits and distracted from running for President?  Does a bear…

Disqualified

I’m sure constitutional scholars will be chiming in on this, but on the face of it, nothing in the Constitution prevents someone convicted of a crime for becoming President.  A President must be impeached to be removed. 

Imagine the confusion and consternation if Trump continues to run – and wins – the presidency while all this, including appeals, is going on.

There is a Supreme Court decision on Representative Adam Clayton Powell that may serve as a precedent.

Whether or not you like Trump, this is a major step toward totalitarianism and must be opposed.  If ever there was a reason for people to stand up to government overreach and its meddling in our elections, this is it.  We the people elect our representatives and the Left should not be allowed to trash this Right along with their efforts to trash our 2nd and 1st Amendment rights.  Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Worst Possible Way  by Tom Reynolds

The Left finds a problem (real or imagined) that they want to fix in the worst possible way and that is exactly how they do it – in the worst possible way.  And that way will almost certainly involve giving the government more power to use against its opponents.

The new training rules from the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) are another attempt do away with 2^nd Amendment guaranteed freedoms by making the process too expensive and too bureaucratic for the average citizen.

Are murders increasing in all our major cities because the murderers did not have the proper firearm training?  Governor Hochul has introduced a solution in search of a problem.

You do not have to show any level of knowledge or proficiency to vote but according to CCIA you must pass a written test and a proficiency test in order to exercise 2A rights.  (Votes can do more harm than guns and I offer Joe Biden and Kathy Hochul as proof.)  Should you have to show that you can diagram a sentence in order to use Free Speech?     

The new training rules are quoted below directly from NYS Police web site, to make them easier for you to reference. 

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CLASSROOM TRAINING CURRICULUM

 Concealed carry firearm safety training must include 16 hours of in-person live classroom instruction conducted by a Duly Authorized Instructor. The curriculum must include the following topics:

1. General firearm safety, including an overview of firearm and ammunition functions and operation, firearm cleaning and maintenance, safe handling practices, range safety rules, and proper holster considerations and retention strategies for safe concealed carry. (2 hours minimum)

2. Firearm safe storage requirements, as defined in Penal Law §§ 265.45 and 265.50, and general firearm secure storage and transportation best practices. (1 hour minimum)

3. State and federal gun laws, including the possession disqualifiers under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and New York State law, restrictions on the private sale or transfer of firearms under New York General Business Law § 898, and requirements for keeping firearm license information up to date, properly registering pistols and revolvers, and license recertification and, if applicable, renewal requirements, including but not limited to the provision set forth in Articles 265 and 400 of the Penal Law. (2 hours minimum)

4. Concealed carry situational awareness of surroundings, including firearm display and concealment.

5. Conflict de-escalation tactics that include verbal and non-verbal strategies, including retreating, that are intended to reduce the intensity of a conflict or crises encountered.

6. Adverse effects of alcohol and drug use as it pertains to firearm safety.

7. Best practices when encountering law enforcement (e.g., a traffic stop), including how to communicate throughout the encounter, considerations for disclosing concealed carry status and displaying a valid firearm license, obeying all commands given by the officer(s), and best practices for handling a firearm and self-identification as a lawful concealed carry licensee if the firearm is visible when an officer responds to an incident.

8. The statutorily defined sensitive places listed in Penal Law § 265.01-e and the restrictions on firearm possession in restricted places under Penal Law § 265.01- d.

9. Conflict management.

10. Use of deadly physical force, including the circumstances in which deadly physical force may be considered justified, and when there is the duty to retreat pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15(2).

11. Suicide prevention including recognizing signs of suicide risk and resources to obtain assistance, including a suicide hotline (e.g., 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline).

12. Basic principles of marksmanship, including stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breathing, and trigger control. (1 hour minimum) III.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN PROFICIENCY TEST

Following completion of the 16-hour in-person classroom instruction each student must demonstrate proficiency by achieving a minimum correct answer score of 80% on a written test covering the course curriculum. Duly Authorized Instructors must develop or use and administer a written proficiency test that evaluates the student’s understanding of each of the minimum standards defined above.

Duly Authorized Instructors must maintain records of student performance on the written examination for at least five (5) years and shall make such records available upon request by the licensing officer or their designee.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LIVE-FIRE TRAINING CURRICULUM

Concealed carry firearm safety training must include 2 hours of live-fire training conducted by a Duly Authorized Instructor. The curriculum must include instruction on the following topics, for which proficiency will be evaluated during a live-fire assessment:

1. Range safety.

2. Safe drawing, target acquisition, and re-holstering.

3. Dry firing.

4. Safe loading and unloading of ammunition.

5. Performing a firearm condition check, and how to achieve and verify a safe and empty firearm condition.

6. Safely discharging the firearm.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LIVE-FIRE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT Following completion of the 2-hour live-fire training, each student must demonstrate proficiency by successfully completing a live-fire assessment. To complete the live-fire assessment, the student must:

1. Perform a firearm condition check and demonstrate that the firearm is in a safe and empty condition.

2. Without any ammunition loaded, safely draw the firearm from concealment, acquire a target, and safely re-holster.

3. Safely load the firearm with five rounds of ammunition. Not holster the loaded firearm. Maintain a ready position with the firearm safely pointed downrange.

4. On the Instructor’s command to fire, aim at the target and fire all five rounds from a standing position, from a distance of 4 yards. The target must be a 25 ½ inch by 11-inch paper target. At least four out of the five rounds must be on target.

5. Perform a firearm condition check and verify that the firearm is in a safe and empty condition.

Duly Authorized Instructors may allow the live-fire proficiency assessment to be completed using either live ammunition or non-lethal training ammunition, which includes marking cartridges and other forms of simulated ammunition training cartridges that eject a projectile by action of an explosive.

Duly Authorized Instructors must maintain records of student performance on the live-fire proficiency assessment for at least five (5) years and shall make such records available upon request by the licensing officer or their designee.

For concealed carry firearm license applicants who have completed a firearm safety training course within the five years preceding September 1, 2022, the respective licensing officer may give credit for such prior training to satisfy some or all of the training requirements set forth in New York Penal Law § 400.00(19), as the licensing officer deems appropriate.

If Hochul and the Democrat legislature were really interested in firearms training as a positive step, (and operating within the U S Constitution) they would have provided it free and voluntary with no proficiency requirements.  Perhaps give free sales tax on the next firearm purchase to those that take it.  But Hochul would not have another club to use against gun owners by doing that.

2A Leadership Matters  by Tom Reynolds

February 13, 2013 was the 100^th anniversary of the passing of the 16^th Amendment.  Remember the parades, fireworks and celebrations?  No?  Perhaps because 16A made legal the Federal Income Tax and even the Left did not dare to celebrate it? 

In a similar vein, January 15^th of this year was the 10^th anniversary of the SAFE Act.  No celebrations there either.

In the first ten years after the SAFE Act was passed, there were few victories (if any) for 2A organizations - until 2022. 

2A’s first ‘22 victory was indirect due to the legislature’s redistricting plan being overturned and replaced.  Had the legislature’s plan prevailed, Republicans and Conservatives would have had a greatly reduced presence (almost invisible) at the state level.  At the federal level, in the following November’s elections the new plan allowed NYS to gain enough Republican (pro 2A) seats in Congress to shift the majority power away from Pelosi and the anti-2A Democrats.

A second victory was directly related to 2A efforts.  Republican Congressman Chris Jacobs had announced he was running for the newly drawn NY 23^rd Congressional District - and it was his to lose.  But he lost it on Memorial Day weekend when he announced that he was voting for some anti-2A bills in the House.  SCOPE immediately swung into action. There are seven counties in the 23^rd and SCOPE has chapters in all seven of them.  The message from those SCOPE chapters to the Republican and Conservative Committee Chairs in those seven counties was to not endorse Jacobs.  About a week later Jacobs withdrew, citing the loss of Republican endorsements.

After Jacobs’ withdrawal, it’s interesting to note the increased attention SCOPE got from political candidates from the governor on down to the county level.  Politicians (Republicans anyway) learned that 2A supporters must be respected.   

Then came the third victory in June; the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision by the United States Supreme Court. This changed the entire playing field along with the Heller and McDonald decisions.

It was a good Spring after ten years ‘in the wilderness.’  Unfortunately, it did not last long.

In response to Bruen, Governor Hochul and the Democrat majority in the legislature ignored the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).  SCOPE explained the impact of these state infringements while vocally opposing them. The stage was set for a series of court decisions and appeals as the State utilized taxpayer funds while gun owners had to rely, financially, on large organizations.

This has led to a variety of lawsuits to which SCOPE continues to make financial contributions, both as an organization and SCOPE members as individuals.  The extreme cost of a lawsuit is hundreds of thousands of dollars and SCOPE is only in a financial position to assist but not bring these suits. We must rely upon the NRA, GOA, NYSRPA and others with large memberships and “deep pockets”. 

Gun owners’ activism rises and falls, but SCOPE still has a broad presence in the state, which left us in a position to oppose Jacobs and Hochul’s new laws. 

Grassroots groups are important and SCOPE is one of the few that operates at both the local and state levels.  Our chapters increase the possibility of a greater voice in the selection of our local and state elected officials. Many candidates appreciate the opportunity to speak to SCOPE members and look forward to high ratings by the county chapters.  State and local level politicians are eager to meet with and hear from SCOPE; but this only happens because of the strong chapter network consisting of grassroots connections with these officials and their staff.

Key to strong chapters is the leadership at the chapter level.  It’s vital to have volunteers step up and take leadership positions in order to allow SCOPE to continue its important work of defending the Constitution and in particular the 2^nd Amendment, but also the 4^th; 5^th; 6^th and 14^th Amendments.  These include: protection of our liberties against unreasonable searches and seizures; rights to a speedy trial with representation (consider many “January 6” defendants); and confronting witnesses; due process; and “equal protection of the laws”.

Taking a leadership position of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary or Treasurer takes some time commitment but is not an overwhelming responsibility.  Other positions at chapter level are important but even less demanding.  What may stop people from doing this is making the time commitment.  But Americans have always been willing to make commitments to righteous causes and preserving the 2^nd Amendment should be no different.  And knowing you are contributing to the defense of our Constitution is a reward beyond estimation.

A year from now, we will be in the midst of a presidential election that will determine if our country continues veering to the left or it regains the direction on which our founding fathers set America.  We need people to volunteer locally and at the state SCOPE level to begin preparing for us for this crucial battle. 

When you don’t participate, you are saying to Biden, Schumer and A O-C, “here- take America and do with it what you will.”  Because they will!  And be happy to do so!  Can you really accept their goals for our country? If not then join a local team of SCOPE volunteers.

If there is not a SCOPE chapter in your county, consider starting one.  Ready to help you are the state officers and, in particular:

Don Smith, SCOPE Membership Chair

315.398.0195
don6027@gmail.com

Feel free to email or call him.

If there is a SCOPE chapter near you, please get involved.  More hands lighten the workload and give us the opportunity to make a greater impact.  The county chairperson is listed in every Firing Lines.

We hope you will join us in our fight, not just to preserve our 2^nd Amendment but to preserve our entire United States Constitution.

Respect for the Second Amendment Act  by Tom Reynolds

Senators John Kennedy (R-La.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced the ‘Respect for the Second Amendment Act’ to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The legislation would codify the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. 

Kennedy said: “Congress has the ability to use its authority to guard against state overreach—and that is what this bill does. At a time when the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is under attack in courtrooms throughout America, we must ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision about the Second Amendment is not only legal precedent but that the law preserves it forever…The Supreme Court has spoken very clearly in Heller and Bruen on the Second Amendment: We have an individual right to own a gun.”

Kennedy added: “I also believe that love is the answer, but…I own a hand gun just in case.”

According to the bill’s announcement, The Respect for the Second Amendment Act would:

• Create public and private rights of action against any person who seeks to enforce a law, rule or ordinance that violates the constitutional right of an individual to manufacture for personal use, acquire, possess, own, carry, transport or use a privately owned firearm or privately owned ammunition unless that law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and history of firearm regulation.

• Prohibit states from rejecting firearms licenses on the sole basis of the license originating under another state’s jurisdiction.

• Eliminate 18 U.S. Code § 927 so that, on a case-by-case basis, Congress can override state law when it proves an unconstitutional attempt to override the Second Amendment.

Section 2 of the bill (FINDINGS) is a good short summary of why this is necessary and Section 2 (6) strikes directly at Hochul and New York.

Section 3C gives us the right to recover ‘costs and a reasonable attorney fee’ if we have to sue because our rights are violated.  The cost of these lawsuits has been a major factor which discourages people from taking to court these infringements of our rights.

This is an opportunity to contact your Senators, no matter what party, and tell them you support this bill and 2A.  This bill gives the Senator the opportunity to support the Supreme Court decision in Bruen.  This is especially important since Senator Gillibrand is coming up for reelection in 2024 

In the House of Representatives, do the same and add that they should introduce a companion bill in the House.

Below is the actual bill

SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Respect for the Second Amendment Act’’.

SECTION 2 FINDINGS

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in an organized militia.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States held in District of Columbia v. Heller, that ‘‘there seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.’’

(3) The Supreme Court further held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that the Second Amendment requires the government to demonstrate that a law regulating firearms ‘‘is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’’.

(4) The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and a cornerstone of the liberties that every United States citizen enjoys.

(5) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enforce, by appropriate legislation, that Amendment’s command that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’.

(6) Certain States have enacted or are seeking to enact gun control laws that are inconsistent with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation, including bans on the carrying of firearms by residents of other States and bans on large categories of firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

(7) It is therefore necessary for Congress to exercise its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of all people of the United States are protected from infringement by the States.

(8) Congress has also exercised authority under the Taxing Clause and Commerce Clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution to regulate the interstate market in firearms and ammunition.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION OF FIREARMS.

(a) DEFINITION OF ‘‘FIREARM’’.

In this section, the term ‘‘firearm’’—

(1) has the meaning given the term in section 921 of title 18, United States Code; and

(2) includes—

(A) an antique firearm, as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code (notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection);

(B) an assembled or unassembled firearm; and       

(C) any part of a firearm, including any integrated or detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device.

(b) NO ENFORCEMENT OR IMPLEMENTATION OF LAWS IN VIOLATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

No person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the Federal Government, of any State or territory, of any locality, or of the District of Columbia may enforce or implement any Federal, State, or local law, rule, ordinance, or regulation that prohibits, limits, places requirements or conditions upon, or otherwise regulates the right of an individual to lawfully manufacture for personal use, acquire, possess, own, carry, transport, or use a privately owned firearm or privately owned ammunition unless the law, rule, ordinance, or regulation is consistent with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation.

(c) ENFORCEMENT.

(1) PUBLIC RIGHT OF ACTION.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief in an appropriate district court of the United States against any person who violates subsection (b).

(2) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

(A) IN GENERAL.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (b), or any membership organization that represents such a person, may bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief in an appropriate district court of the United States against the person who committed the violation.

(B) COSTS AND FEES.—The court shall award costs and a reasonable attorney fee to any plaintiff who prevails in an action brought under subparagraph (A), including if the action is resolved by a negotiated settlement or mooted by repeal or amendment of the offending law, rule, regulation, prohibition, policy, or practice.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to—

(1) preempt any provision of State law that provides greater protections to the individual right to keep and bear arms than those provided under this section; or

(2) limit any other remedy available under the laws of a State or the United States for infringement of the right to lawfully manufacture for personal use, acquire, possess, own, carry, transport, or use a privately owned firearm or privately owned 2 ammunition.

SECTION 4 REPEALER.

Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking section 927; and 

(2) in the table of sections, by striking the item 8 relating to section 927

The Insanity Continues  by Tom Reynolds

In Maryland, Murder in the first degree includes if it was committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of several specified crimes, such as rape, arson, robbery, burglary, carjacking, and other serious offenses that carry life imprisonment with or without the possibility of parole.

Maryland Democrats introduced into the Maryland General Assembly the Youth Accountability and Safety Act, which would prohibit a person younger than 25 at the time of the offense from being convicted of first-degree murder under the state's felony murder provisions.  It has the support of several Democratic co-sponsors.

Sounds like the Youth NON Accountability Act.

Maryland wouldn’t want MS13 members, gangbangers and other ‘innocents under 25’ having their lives ruined just because they murdered someone.

__________________________

SCOPE writes constantly about how liberal politicians ignore the Constitution without any regrets.

New York Assemblywoman Pat Fahy wants to see anywhere from a 2-to-5-cent tax on each round of ammunition sold in the state (basically, the bigger the bullet the higher the tax)

But she said out loud what is generally only whispered: “if you buy 50 rounds, it’ll be just a couple of extra dollars.  So, it’s not a huge tax, but another disincentive to arming up.”

That statement could end up being a big oops in Appeals Courts.

In the 1940s, in a case called Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court said: A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

Isn’t there something in the Constitution about the right of “bearing arms?”

__________________________

Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh’s administration unveiled a $1 million proposal to lower gun violence (Syracuse had a per capita murder rate in 2021 three times the rest of the U.S.)  Among other initiatives, he wants to pay known gang members a weekly stipend not to break the law and to work toward turning their life around.

The Safer Streets Program would provide a $100 per week stipend for up to 90 days (13 weeks) and focus on mental health, education and career placement. The idea is to assist 50 high-risk individuals in getting on the right track. 

The program would be funded using federal funds from the American Rescue Plan.

So, if you work hard at being a criminal and can make the 50 worst list, you will be rewarded with $100 a week.  Who says crime doesn’t pay.

__________________________________

USA Powerlifting is being forced to allow biological men - who claim to be women - to compete against natural-born women after a transgender contestant launched a nearly five-year campaign demanding to be allowed to compete in the women’s category.

Minnesota District Court Judge Patrick Diamond ruled in favor of transgender JayCee Cooper’s attack on USA Powerlifting’s ban on transgender men competing as women.

Anyone want to bet on who will win the next power lifting competition?

It’s Not a Suggestion  by Tom Reynolds

One of the great problems of today is that the overwhelming majority of the media / press has jumped so far left.  The press in the United States has always been biased but there used to be a diversity of biases so we heard a diversity of opinions.  Now, much of what we hear are leftist echoes.

Sometimes, when the Left tries to cover themselves with the blanket of intellectual superiority, they go down in flames.  Unfortunately, because so much of the media is leftist, this self-immolation is not covered. 

Media coverage of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert is a good example.  If the left can discredit her on one issue, they might discredit her on all issues.  And any who are familiar with the media’s image of her have probably developed a negative image.  But since she is a true 2^nd Amendment supporter, she is important to the 2A community.

Boebert’s statements are ridiculed by the liberal media, probably because she doesn’t have a college degree, unlike that Liberal intellectual giant, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  It’s worth exploring some of the things Boebert is criticized for saying as it shows the leftist biases of the media.  

She once was criticized for tweeting, “Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.”  (That struck home for those of us who defend 2A.) 

Brilliant minds on the Left immediately said she was an idiot who didn’t know about the Article V of the Constitution, which covers ways of amending the Constitution. 

Of course she knows!  The issue Boebert was referring to - that somehow escaped the Left’s great minds - is judges rewriting the Constitution according to their personal beliefs and not according to what was written in the Constitution.

The interesting thing is that Boebert outsmarted the liberal press.  In criticizing Boebert, the Left was, in spite of themselves, endorsing what Conservatives believe in: that the only way to change the Constitution is to amend it. That’s exactly what the Left does not believe in as they see the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around.   

The Left’s latest bit of self-arson was headlined: “Lauren Boebert goes down in flames over latest Constitutional gaffe.”  That’s worth exploring in more detail as it involves Constitutional rights. 

The article started out: “Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) received an avalanche of derision on Wednesday morning after she penned a vague-yet-incorrect statement about the United States Constitution.” 

Specifically, she tweeted, “The U.S. Constitution was not written as a suggestion”. 

Then, the article referenced her comment on amendments, noted above, to again prove she is a constitutional illiterate.  But the article never said why Boebert was incorrect to say, "The U.S. Constitution was not written as a suggestion."  Probably because what she said was true; the Constitution is not just a suggestion!

The article then disparages her for saying, "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it…I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does."

Boebert displays far greater understanding of a deeply intellectual issue than the liberal press.  She was talking about – and challenging as many others do – an interpretation of Amendment #1.  That Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

The current interpretation of the 1^st Amendment flows from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association.  (That stinking letter the Left seems to be unaware of.) In it, he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state.”

The problem is, the interpretation of Jefferson’s wall stops all discourse from both sides – government and nongovernment.  The entire U S Constitution, including the 1^st Amendment, was meant to only restrict the government, not the people.  Remember the 1^st Amendment wording is: Congress shall make no law.

Daniel Dreisbach is a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University in Washington, D.C., who explains: “The literal text of the First Amendment restricts government only…The wall metaphor implies that the First Amendment restricts people of faith, religious spokesmen, and religious leaders also, but that’s far beyond the requirement of the text of the First Amendment.”

Remember the rest of the 1^st Amendment about abridging the freedom of speech?  Dreisbach believes the First Amendment, “is intended and designed to create an environment where various ideas and perspectives can compete in a marketplace of ideas on the same terms and conditions…Religious communities and religious perspectives…should be able to compete in that marketplace. An analysis that draws on the wall of separation metaphor…treats religious perspectives differently than other nongovernmental perspectives and actually puts them at a disadvantage.”

Putting up a wall to exclude or to limit the ability of religion to inform public life or to inform about political actions is wrong. 

The 1^st Amendment enforces that government should not use its overwhelming power to pick winners and losers, nor is it meant to silence either the winners or losers.

But the Left was never big on disagreements with their principles.  We know that from their attacks on the 2^nd Amendment.

Lazarus Returns  by Tom Reynolds

The HUD program called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is a program you should really be aware of even though it’s not about 2A. 

Obama’s HUD discovered a brief mention in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and created AFFH, which calls for diversity in all levels of housing in towns and suburbs. 

Towns and suburbs are obligated to “do more than simply not discriminate”.  They have to make it possible for low-income minorities to choose suburban living and the towns must also provide “adequate support to make their choices possible.”

Vox suggests “adequate support” might include:

providing rides and counseling to those who might want to move from a low-income urban area to an affluent suburban one; (they want to move into more affluent community but can’t afford a ride to get there?)

require increasing the value of housing vouchers so that low-income recipients could cash them out in more expensive neighborhoods; (increasing government subsidies!)

requiring cities to steer new subsidized housing development into wealthier locales.  (I’ll bet gated communities won’t get subsidized housing near them but middle class neighborhoods will now be classified as wealthier locales.)

Under this program, suburbs were viewed as fundamentally unjust communities because they prevented taxation from flowing into the urban cities they surround.  (Suburbanites are selfishly keeping their own money.)

AFFH’s plan included building high-density housing in low density suburban neighborhoods, (goodbye local zoning laws). 

Trump’s HUD Secretary, Ben Carson stripped away Obama's AFFH Rule.  (In response, the left-wing media played the race card.  Ignoring that Ben Carson is black.) 

But the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is still on the books and the AFFH rule still exists and Like Lazarus rising from the dead, AFFH is back under President Joe Biden.

In January, the Biden administration’s HUD department proposed a new rule that would require virtually all communities across the U S A to create plans to address local housing discrimination. (As with all whites being racist under the definition of ‘white supremacy’, rural and suburban communities are labelled as discriminatory under AFFH.)

Backed by enforcement mechanisms and credible threats of yanking needed funding or facing a penalty which entails the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding, any city or county that accepts HUD grant money would have to comply. 

Some predict there may be opposition.  (Ya think!)

“Any move toward an increase in density generally faces very strong negative reaction from neighborhood groups that have significant influence on the decisions made by local politicians,” says Greg Proctor, vice president for affordable housing for RealPage Inc.  (Put a less deceptive way, Proctor thinks it is bad that local voters have a say in what local elected politicians do.) 

Never having met a radical left proposal she did not like, Kathy Hochul has joined Biden with her latest plan to destroy New York State.

Politico reported in February that Hochul is pushing ‘a proposal that may be radioactive in the bedroom communities (of the lower Hudson Valley and Long Island): A plan to mandate more housing in those suburban counties…:”

“Hochul wants to give the state bold new authority to override local zoning laws in cases where municipalities resist her measure, which she hopes will help address a housing shortage that made New York one of the least affordable places in the country.”

New York State had the largest interstate population loss of any state in the nation last year, according to Census data.  The governor attributes it to housing unaffordability, impacting the state’s ability to compete for jobs and residents. 

According to ‘Hochul think’, NYS’s bleeding of population and jobs is the fault of rural and suburban voters who don’t want to live in congested, crime ridden cities. 

Could taxes and regulation have something to do with people moving to Texas and Florida, which have lower taxes and regulations?  Nah!

Half of the 800,00 homes that Hochul wants to see built will be in NYC and require a tax incentive for affordable housing.  And there you have the underlying adjective in her plans: affordable - which is another word for government subsidized which is another way of saying taxpayer funded.

“If you build it they will come” works in the movies but there are other issues in real life.  It’s laughable to think that if we just add houses that jobs and people will come running back.  (I bought a house in New York and stayed for the taxes is not a winning slogan.) 

Another Hochul measure would require downstate counties to rezone to allow more dense housing near rail stations where they will have easier access to a certain crime ridden city that people are leaving for the suburbs.  (In Hochul speak: “Transit oriented development.”)

If the targets aren’t met or new zoning changes aren’t made, a state appeals process would allow circumvention of local zoning restrictions.  (You shouldn’t have a say in what the area you live in looks like.  Hochul knows best and you’ll just have to suck-it-up.)

An alternative to family homes are rental units.  Hochul’s answer to that is to include more anti-landlord regulations in her budget.  Brilliant strategy to increase housing development!

The governor is looking to get her proposal approved by the Democratic led Legislature, as part of a budget deal for the fiscal year that starts April 1.  It is reported that the Democrats who control both legislative houses want to soften the bill - but still pass it.

Because the federal and state governments are now funding so many local projects, they only need to threaten to withhold funding to trample on constitutional rights.  (The founding fathers warned about what a too powerful central government would do to individual rights.)

You might want to contact your federal and state representatives and tell them how much you are looking forward to your rural town / suburb becoming a clone of NY City.

March 20^{th  by Tom Reynolds}

SCOPE has kept you informed on the upcoming court hearing on March 20^th and even contributed to the legal fees.  (Over $14,000 from SCOPE and its members at last count.)

One of the case’s lawyers recently advised that, if this follows the Court’s usual procedure, it may be 3 to 6 months before we get a decision.

Legal Insurrection’s web site had a nice summary by James Naught of the situation.  So rather than “reinvent the wheel” in order to refresh you on the situation, the following are excerpts from that post, which closely align with what SCOPE has been saying:    

As we have covered, on June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, struck down New York State’s restrictive concealed carry law:

The usual suspects, of course, were not happy.

New York and other blue states impacted by the Court’s decision immediately began attempting to work around the ruling, which resulted in New York passing its new Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) only eight days after the Court’s ruling.

This new law, “intended to thwart the SCOTUS decision,” prohibits concealed carry in “sensitive places” such as “health care facilities; houses of worship; colleges and universities; places where children gather, such as schools, day care centers, playgrounds, parks and zoos; public transportation; places where alcohol or cannabis is consumed; and theaters, concerts, casinos and other entertainment venues.” It also prohibits concealed carry “in any business that does not post a sign saying it’s OK.”

Additionally, although “SCOTUS struck down the prior law as giving too much discretion to the state,…the new legislation has plenty of fuzzy, judgmental standards that reestablish discretion,” such as…add[ing] new requirements for New Yorkers to receive a concealed carry permit, including 16 hours of training on how to handle a handgun, two hours of firing range training, an in-person interview and a written exam, as well as a review of social media accounts.”

As we concluded when the new law was passed, these requirements, taken as a whole mean that “basically, you cannot actually carry. The entire scheme is a willful and knowing evasion of a constitutional right.”

Of course, litigation ensued, and in October, as we reported, “U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby found critical parts of New York’s gun law, the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), unconstitutional.” Not only did Northern District of New York Judge Suddaby, in Antonyuk v. Hochul, strike down almost all of the “sensitive places” prohibitions in the law, he also “blocked the part where applicants must prove “good moral character” and allow authorities to review their social media profiles.”

Now that case is on appeal, and even liberal groups such as the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, an LGBT Second Amendment advocacy group, the Liberal Gun Club, and others have filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief against the CCIA, as we reported here: Liberal Groups File Court Opposition To NY Gun Control Law Requiring Disclosure Of Social Media Accounts.

Oral argument will be heard in the case at 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning, March 20, 2023 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in lower Manhattan.

This is important, because as the New York Sun reports, this is the first comprehensive federal appellate challenge to states’ attempts to work around, or even completely emasculate, the US. Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling: 

Five cases out of New York’s federal district courts will be heard in the Second Circuit in front of a panel of three judges. The judges face the difficult task of interpreting the state’s gun laws in the wake of a Supreme Court decision from last year.

The confusion around what is and what is not permissible following the Bruen decision will now face its first comprehensive test at the appellate level after five decisions from lower courts struck down key aspects of the CCIA.

The five cases — Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Hardaway v. Nigrelli, Spencer v. Nigrelli, Christian v. Nigrelli, and Gazzola v. Hochul — resulted in a number of the CCIA’s provisions being thrown out. A requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character” was thrown out, as was the requirement that applicants submit their social media information as part of background checks.

The panel who will hear the appeal consists of Circuit Judge Joseph F. Bianco, appointed by President Trump, and Senior Circuit Judges Robert D. Sack, a Clinton appointee, and Richard C. Wesley, appointed by President George W. Bush, and who had been an Associate Judge with the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, prior to his appointment to the federal appellate bench.

Especially important as regards this appeal is that the U.S. Supreme Court is typically reluctant to hear Second Amendment cases. Before Bruen, the Court had not heard a gun case since McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, in 2010. So, what the Second Circuit says regarding the CCIA is likely to be the last word, at least for now.