New Laws

The New York State war on the 2nd Amendment continues.  As SCOPE has often pointed out, since NY can’t get 2A repealed, NY State is trying to drive gun shops out of business. 

The following bill was passed and has been sent to Kathy Hochul for a signature.

A2882/S6649 requires gun shops to put a warning sign on their buildings. The warning sign would state: “Access to a weapon or firearm in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and/or unintentional deaths to children, household members and others. If you or a loved one is experiencing distress and/or depression, call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 988.”

Firearms are now like cigarettes and alcohol, except the latter two aren’t constitutionally protected rights.

The law will be enforced by your local police: “The Provisions Of This Subdivision Shall Be Enforced Within Each Municipality By The Applicable Local Police Force, Including Town, City And Village Police Departments Which Officers Are Authorized To Issue Appearance Tickets. Appearance Tickets Shall Be Served Personally.”

Hey, it’s not like there is a lot of crime happening out there to keep them otherwise occupied.

The penalties for failure to comply: “A Violation Punishable By Imprisonment Of Not More Than Fifteen Days Or By A Fine Of Not More Than One Thousand Dollars, Or Both. Each Day That A Violation Continues Shall Be Deemed A Separate Offense.”  (Emphasis added.)

New York is an expert at pyramiding crimes as seen in the Trump trial in NY City.

This will also put business licenses in jeopardy

And don’t cross your local police, they have a get out of jail free card!

“No Licensing Officer, Local Government, Or Any Employee Thereof Shall Be Liable To Any Person By Reason Of Any Injury Or Damage Resulting From The Failure Of “Any Gunsmith Or Firearms Dealer To Comply With This Subdivision Or In Consequence Of Any Act Or Omission In Connection With The Implementation Or Enforcement Of This Subdivision.”

The police will have absolute discretion in performing their duty here and immunity from tortious conduct that may arise from their performance, even intentional misconduct. 

Here’s another one waiting for Hochul’s signature.

A9862/S8479 allow financial institutions to assign merchant category codes (MCC’s) to retailers who sell firearms and ammunition, thus allowing these financial institutions to potentially track and/or halt purchases from these retailers. 

A9862 & S8479 will require issuers of credit and debit cards to use specific MCC’s for firearms and ammunition merchants.

This legislation will allow financial institutions to distinguish firearm retailers from other general or sporting-goods retailers, as well as allow for the potential creation of a list or registry of privately owned firearms in New York.

In addition, it sets the stage for New York State to pressure retailers, wholesalers, financers and others to withhold firearm related services as the credit card company will have a list of them, based on MCC’s. The state already tried that and was slapped down by the Supreme Court in NRA v Vullo.*  But NY State has never let the Supreme Court stand in the way of NY’s lawless pursuit of neutering the 2nd Amendment.

*S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - NRA v Vullo (scopeny2a.org)

More Than Bump Stocks

Beware of liberal judges, they do not believe in the United States Constitution and will destroy your rights to achieve their goal – which is to destroy your rights.  Doubt that?  Let’s look at the recent decision on ‘Bump Stocks.’

Some quick background.

Semi-automatic firearms require a separate trigger pull for each shot.  Automatic firearms, (machine guns) require only one trigger pull for continuous shooting.  This has been the law since 1934.

After a “Bump Stock” was used in a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an interpretive rule concluding that "Bump Stocks" are machine guns, even though they require a trigger pull for each shot.

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued the government after he was forced to surrender several "bump stocks" under the ATF's rule. He argued that ATF incorrectly identified bump stocks as machine guns, and overstepped its power in banning them.

A Texas-based U.S. District Court first approved the ATF rule, but an appeals court overruled it and sent it back to the District Court.  The second time around, the District Court judge agreed that the ATF rule was illegal and likely to be rejected by other courts.

Of course, the Biden Administration appealed and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS.)

The Supreme Court struck down the ATF ban on bump stocks.  SCOTUS found that the ATF did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks.  The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by fellow conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

This decision needs in depth examination as it highlights why leftist judges are such a danger to the Constitution.

Justice Clarence Thomas outlined the issue when he wrote, "This tragedy (the Las Vegas shooting) created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Within days, members of Congress proposed bills to ban ‘bump stocks.’ 

But the bills did not pass and so did not become law.  That’s how the Constitution works!  Congress must pass laws to put them in effect.

Instead, the ATF acted and outlawed “Bump Stocks.”

Why did SCOTUS rule against ATF?

In essence, the law Congress passed in 1934 and amended several ties afterwards clearly states that a machine gun requires only one trigger pull for continuous shooting.  A ‘Bump Stock’ helps to fire rapidly but requires a separate trigger pull for each shot.  A ‘Bump Stock’ does not make a gun into a machine gun as defined in existing law.  The ATF violated a law Congress passed.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority arguing that the majority got it wrong.  That’s fair, to question a decision.  Both sides do it, all the time.

But then Sotomayor goes too far when she is quoted as saying that it’s “deeply regrettable” Congress has to act.

At the highest judicial level, liberals like Sotomayor find it ‘deeply regrettable’ that proposed laws - that they like - have to go through the work of being passed by a Congress elected by “We the People’ in order to become laws!  They would much prefer their favorite proposals just be enacted by some executive agency appointees without ‘We the People’ having any say.  After all, Liberals know best!

This is not the first time Sotomayor has expressed dissatisfaction with the constitutional steps needed to pass a law and prefers executive agency shortcuts.  In another dissent, when a Barack Obama executive order was overruled by SCOTUS, Sotomayor complained that the people should not have to wait for Congress to act.

Justice Alito spoke for Conservatives when he wrote a short, separate concurring opinion on ‘Bump Stocks’ to stress that Congress can change the law to equate ‘Bump Stocks’ with machine guns.  He doesn’t regret that Congress has to pass a law for it to be in force; it might then reflect the will of the people and not just the will of the liberal elite. 

That’s it in a nutshell.  Liberals want to bypass the Constitution whenever it’s convenient - for them - and they will rule as such if they can get a majority.  The Constitution has no meaning to liberals like Sotomayor when it works against them.  Conservatives believe laws should be enacted following the Constitution, whether or not it is convenient.

The way to prevent liberal judges from ‘legislating from the bench’ is to vote.  Donald Trump explained it when he spoke at the National Rifle Association's Annual Meeting in Texas about not voting.

"But one thing I'll say, and I say it as friends, we've got to get gun owners to vote, because you know what? I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's a form of rebellion, because you're a rebellious people, aren't you? But gun owners don't vote. What is that all about?"

"If gun owners would vote, we would swamp them at levels that nobody's ever seen before.  So, I think you're a rebellious bunch.  So, let's be rebellious and vote this time."

Trump Trial Notes

It is difficult to get the straight story on the current Trump trial since it is loaded with complexities and not completely explained by much of the media (intentionally or not.).  For instance, what exactly were the 34 counts that Trump was charged with?  After all, at the bottom of this was a $130,000 payment to lawyer Cohen.  How did that payment get to be 34 crimes?

To understand, there are two things to remember: 

In the corporate world, one does not simply write a check.  There is an invoice (bill) and then entries are made into the books (ledgers) and then an actual check is written.  It seems that each of those steps was considered a separate “crime.”

And then Cohen was not paid in one check but over several checks written between February 17, 2017 and December 5, 2017.  So, each check resulted in multiple crimes repeated multiple times, resulting in 34 crimes. 

Here are the first 4 crimes, all revolving around 1 check (emphasis added):

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof:

(Crime 1) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 2) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 3) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 4) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

Writing one check = four crimes.

Every time a new check was written, add three or four more crimes. 

If the whole bill had been paid with one check, there would only be 4 “crimes” and not 34.

The 34 crimes amount to an accounting disagreement as to how the payments were classified.  The prosecution claims the checks were falsely labeled as being for legal services. Trump’s lawyers claimed they were properly labeled because Cohen was serving as Trump’s attorney at the time. 

Would normal procedure (not involving Donald Trump) have been to negotiate a classification and pay any additional taxes (if there were any?)

Trump was accused of falsification of business records, which only requires someone to have “[made] or [caused] a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  Under New York law, that crime is a misdemeanor and it had already passed the Statute of Limitations so Trump could not be prosecuted on them, standing alone. 

The 34 misdemeanors become felonies if it’s proven the defendant falsified records “with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

What was the second crime that made the misdemeanors into a felony?

Prosecutors alleged that the second crime was against New York’s election law: 

Election (ELN) CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 17, TITLE 1

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more

persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.  (Emphasis added.)

The second crime, necessary to make the 34 crimes a felony was a misdemeanor that Trump had promoted his election as President.

On November 8th 2016, Trump was elected President.

On January 20th, 2017, Trump was sworn in as President.

The first check and associated entries were not made until February 17th, 2017, after Trump was already President. 

How could entries made after Trump was elected and inaugurated have made a difference?  If the entries had been labelled “boinking a bimbo porn star”, it would have been embarrassing but would not have affected the election.  Labelling them lawyer’s fees had no impact on the election.

Ah, but Cohen cut the check for $130,000 just before the election and, in return, got a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).  A conspiracy? 

First, Non-Disclosure Agreements are legal agreements.  There would not seem to be a crime.  The jurors had to determine whether a third crime was committed that made the NDA payment violate the election law.

Second, Cohen testified about a conversation he had with Trump on October 24th^, 2016.  But under cross examination, the defense produced text messages that the prosecution had initially hidden from the defense.  Why hide them?  Well…  The text messages written both before and after the phone call showed that the phone call was to Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller and lasted less than two minutes and was about harassing phone calls that Cohen had been getting.  Cohen claimed that he knew Trump was with Schiller.  The defense says Trump was not there. 

In any case, how much could have been said in such a short time about two subjects including an NDA that was legal?   Were they discussing a conspiracy about a legal agreement? 

Judge Merchan gave the jurors the option of finding that the “unlawful” action that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act was the NDA.

Bradley Alan Smith was initially nominated by President Clinton and  served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He is one of many election law scholars that have written that the NDA was not a violation of the federal election law.  He was scheduled to testify as such in the trial, which would have killed this tactic by the prosecution. Judge Merchan ruled that “Smith may not testify…or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct in this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA").   As Smith later explained, "Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me.” 

So, Smith could testify but not on the central issue, of which he was an expert.  That explanation to the jury was left to Judge Merchan, who was not an expert.

The judge instructed the jurors that they must agree on the first and second crimes—that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up the election crime—for him to be convicted, but they can differ on the third crime, or the “unlawful means” to influence an election. Some jurors could think campaign finance laws were broken and others could think there were tax violations, for instance. 

So much for that quaint legal tradition about unanimous decisions.

In summary, the prosecution turned questions about accounting classifications of a legal agreement into the crime of influencing an election, after the election had occurred.

There is much more about this.  Serious constitutional issues.  For more on them, go to:

Trump Guilty Verdict: “There are some serious constitutional problems with this case” (legalinsurrection.com)

S9137A:  So Hunters Don’t Believe Hochul and Company Are Coming For Them

Larry DiDonato did a good job of outlining this in Outdoors on June 7th and we reprint it here with his permission.

                 ___________________________________________________

​New York gun grab may hurt hunters 

The New York State Senate recently passed a bill, S9137A, that bans the open carrying of rifles and shotguns in New York. It defines openly carrying a rifle or shotgun as doing so in a manner that allows the rifle or shotgun, or any portion of it, to be visible to others. Rifles and shotguns are also commonly referred to as “long guns.” The senate states the purpose of the bill is; “…to regulate the open carry of rifles and shotguns with enumerated exceptions in order to promote public safety and align with existing law in other states.”

Sponsor of the long gun carry ban, Deputy Senate Majority Leader, Micheal Gianaris, (D-Queens), said, “Making our communities safe starts with educating gun owners and limiting accessibility to weapons of violence. I am proud we are taking serious steps to tackle this critical issue. We must keep our communities safe and prevent guns from taking more lives.” 

I don’t know of any hunter or shooting sports enthusiast who considers firearms used as they enjoy their hobby, a “weapon of violence,” but it’s apparent Sen. Gianaris does. 

This bill does nothing to keep our communities safe. Criminals, intent on committing crimes with guns, will not be deterred by this legislation. Plus, long guns are almost never used in the commission of street, turf, gang, and drug fueled shootings, currently ravaging NY’s urban centers.

According to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns. The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders in 1993 were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns where the type was unknown.” 

Later federal studies confirm the trend. When the FBI researched homicides to determine the type of weapon used in homicides committed in the U.S. in 2019, they determined rifles were used in just 2.6%, and shotguns in just 1.4% of those homicides. Handguns, not long guns remain the weapon of choice in most of the homicides committed in the US. 

Although the NYS bill banning the open carry of long guns claims to “promote public safety,” it does nothing to address the real issue of crimes committed by criminals with guns in our cities.  

The state Senate already passed its version of the long gun carry ban, but its companion bill in the state Assembly, A10052, currently remains in the Assembly Codes Committee.

In an interview with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) President Tom King, he called upon all concerned citizens, especially hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts to immediately contact their assembly representative, regardless of their party affiliation, to object to passage of this assembly bill. Its imperative legislators hear from constituents expressing their disapproval of needless, harmful legislation that does nothing to fight crime, and makes law abiding long gun owners into criminals simply by carrying hunting and target shooting rifles and shotguns.

Tom King added there’s recently been a deluge of anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation in NY. This bill checks both boxes. It is both anti-lawful gun ownership, and anti-hunting. The NYSRPA president went on to say Democrats have a veto-proof super majority in both the NY senate and assembly and emphasized the most important thing people can do is vote in November. “What we are seeing is the result of losing elections.” Make sure you vote so we can achieve a more balanced legislative body. Call your legislator on this, and other anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation you find objectionable.   

While the current Senate and Assembly bills prohibiting the open carry of long guns tout some exemptions for police, military, military re-enactors, etc., in addition to those lawfully engaged in hunting and target shooting, there’s a problem. If you’re hunting and injure a deer for instance, and you track that deer onto posted property with a firearm, that used to be a mere violation in NY and you’d get a ticket for trespass while hunting facing a maximum fine of $250/and/or 15 days in jail. This new law makes the offense a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. The law follows a ridiculous theory established by NY’s CCIA where all NYS landowners must affirmatively post their property ALLOWING carrying of firearms. Otherwise, a hunter with a long gun who trespasses can go to jail for a year after being charged and convicted of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th Degree pursuant to this long gun open carry legislative ban.

How does this bill “promote public safety”?  Locking up law-abiding hunters and target shooters who get caught up in loopholes that make them criminally liable for a serious gun charge do nothing to “promote public safety.” In fact, the legislature is defying a federal court ruling that already shot down the provision of NY’s CCIA requiring signage affirmatively permitting those with legal firearms from being guilty of a crime just by going across a private property line.  “A federal appeals court has struck down a New York State law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.” 

Assemblyman Chris Tague (R/C-Schoharie) said, "New York State continues to set the bar for some of the most constitutionally-infringing legislation when it comes to gun rights, and this bill is just another example. It's another attack on responsible gun owners and sportsmen, and should absolutely not be the priority for this government. The fact that the Democrats of this state would rather work on this as opposed to the immediate issues people are facing on the ground, like affordability and the ongoing migrant crisis that is draining this state's resources is frustrating to see. I'd much rather focus our time and energy on those matters."

This statement seems to sum up the frustration of many NY sportsmen, gun owners, in addition to those voiceless victims trapped in high-crime urban areas who seek effective redress to combat crimes committed by criminals with guns. ​​​​​

A resident of Durham, Larry is a retired captain with the  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

SCOPE Note: With the legislature closed down, hopefully for the year, we can hope this bill was not passed by the Assembly in their flurry of last minute activity.  But even if not passed this year, you can bet that a new version will be dialed up by Senate Democrats in January 2025.

Hunters, you have been warned!

NRA v Vullo

The Far Left seems to recognize no boundaries in pursuit of their goals.  They expect the public to quietly accept whatever they do, especially since most of the media will not criticize them.  The danger the Left is willing to assume is that they may push it too far and create pushback.  In the issue before us today, the pushback came from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Too often we lose sight of those non 2nd Amendment other rights protected by the Constitution.  However, sometimes those other rights have an impact on 2A. 

Which brings us to the case of National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo.

The NRA sued Maria Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. She could initiate investigations, refer cases for prosecution, notice civil charges, and enter into consent decrees. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners in the insurance industry. 

The facts.

 In a  1963 decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, SCOTUS explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech.  SCOTUS ruled that even though a state regulatory commission lacked the “power to apply formal legal sanctions,” the coerced party “reasonably understood” the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus its “compliance with the commission’s directives was not voluntary.”

Fifty five years later, on February 27, 2018, Vullo disregarded the Bantam decision and met with senior executives at Lloyds of London (a huge multinational insurance company) and expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd’s executives “that DFS was less interested in pursuing” infractions unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”   Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s “would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,” and “in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA.”

Subsequently, on April 19, 2018, Vullo issued letters entitled, “Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.”   In the Guidance Letters, Vullo “encouraged” DFS-regulated entities to: reevaluate, review and take prompt action on any dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.

Vullo and Governor Cuomo also issued a joint press release echoing many of the letters’ statements, and “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to join those that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.

Fulfilling their part of the bargain, DFS subsequently entered into separate consent decrees with insurance companies that it had been investigating.  These companies agreed to not provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs (even if lawful).

Vullo and the DFS’s lawyers had to be aware of the Bantam decision and know that a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, but she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression. 

But legalities have never been an issue to the left when pursuing their goal of undermining the Constitution.

The NRA sued Vullo alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.  Vullo / New York asked the federal courts to dismiss the NRA’s suit.

The District Court denied Vullo’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that “the combination of [Vullo’s and Cuomo’s] actions . . . could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action.”

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court decision. It concluded that Vullo’s alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, and not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit determined that the Guidance Letters and accompanying press release were not unconstitutionally coercive because they “were written in an even handed, nonthreatening tone and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate.”  (Was the 2nd Circuit reading the same guidance letter and considering Vullo’s meeting with Lloyd’s???)

The NRA appealed to SCOTUS and, last week, SCOTUS overruled the 2nd Circuit decision by a unanimous 9-0 decision.  Leftist Justice Sotomayer even wrote the decision.  The NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.

The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  (The NRA hasn’t won the actual case but the case is proceeding instead of being dismissed.)

In pushing this obvious violation of the NRA’s 1st Amendment Rights, Vullo and DFS may have opened a Pandora’s Box that the left will not like.

Breitbart Business Digest writes:

“Just as the NRA argued that Vullo's actions violated their rights, fossil fuel companies can now contend that insurance regulators' climate policies do the same. The arguments that the DFS used to pressure insurance companies to drop the NRA are almost the same arguments it has used to pressure companies to divest themselves from fossil fuels and stop insuring fossil fuel projects.”

“Insurers were being told to drop underwriting and investment in fossil fuels because activist "social movements" were likely to demand that they do so. Who needs to pass laws when just the possibility of leftwing activism is enough to trigger regulation?”

Let’s hope that government overreach and weaponization will suffer a significant setback.

Here is another reason why gun owners and lovers of the US Constitution need to vote.  The President nominates SCOTUS justices and the Senate confirms them.  A left leaning SCOTUS would be a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

Gun Owners’ Non-Votes

Let’s start with a fact: there is no doubt that the New York Democrat Party is rabidly anti- 2nd Amendment, and especially the NY Democrat governors.  Based on their 2A positions, Democrat candidates are not attractive to gun owners.

There is no generally accepted count of gun owners.  A few years ago, estimates of gun owners in NY State generally ranged from 4.0 million to 5.5 million.  With the surge in gun purchases since Biden became President, it’s reasonable to guess that the numbers now range from 4.5 million to 6 million.* 

Let’s use 5 million gun owners in NY State as a conservative estimate for this exercise.

Nationwide surveys have determined that about two-thirds of the people eligible to vote actually do vote on a regular basis.  That’s not just eligible registered voters but all possible eligible voters, registered or not.

If NY gun owners voted in the same percentages as the general public, 3.3 million would vote regularly. Two thirds of the 5 million gun owners is 3.3 million. 

SCOPE estimates that about 1.8 million gun owners vote regularly. 

1.8 million gun owners vote while 3.3 million should vote.  The difference is 1.5 million gun owners sitting on the sidelines.

Not all gun owners vote Republican / Conservative.  Let’s say 75% ** of gun owners vote Republican / Conservative.  

If those 1.5 million non-voters had voted 75% Republican / Conservative, that would have been a net gain of 50%, which is 750 thousand*** Republican / Conservative votes. 

Kathy Hochul won in 2022 by less than 400 thousand votes.

Andrew Cuomo won in 2014 by just over 500 thousand votes.

Think about that.  If gun owners had voted only at national averages, there would be no Kathy Hochul today and no Andrew Cuomo after 2014.

Lower the split to 70% Republican/Conservative and 30% Democrat and you net a gain of 600 thousand votes. Still enough to eliminate Hochul and Cuomo.

How do we get 1.5 million gun owners off the sideline and into the voting booth?

Notes:

* A May 11, 2024 article in Gun Zone said: “According to recent estimates, there are approximately 5.2 million gun owners in New York State.”

** Why use 75%? 

75% of 1.8 million 1.35 million.  In recent NY Governor and Presidential elections, the 1.35 million would range from half to way-more-than-half of the total Republican / Conservative votes.  Unless you believe that gun owners are the only ones voting Republican / Conservative, 1.35 million is reasonable. 

Other studies have shown 30% to 50% of gun owners vote, depending on state.  1.8 million is 36% of 5 million so it is in line. 

And usually, more than 75% of statewide Republican / Conservative votes come from Upstate NY, which is where the Republican / Conservative strength is located.

*** 75% R/C votes minus 25% Democrat votes nets a 50% gain in Republican / Conservative votes.  50% of the 1.5 million who didn’t vote is 750 thousand.

TOP 5 MOST EGREGIOUS FIREARMS LEGISLATIONCURRENTLY DEBATED IN THE NY STATE LEGISLATURE

1.    Assembly Bill 08443 – Requires NY Attorney General to bring civil and criminal actions in NY State courts against any NY State resident or the ammunition seller in another state, when ammunition is purchased in another state, and it does not go through NY State’s ammunition background check.  Sponsors include 1 democrat; Referred to Codes Committee on January 3, 2024.

2.     Senate Bill 8461 – Requires skeet field tracts at shooting ranges to be certain dimensions (300x600 yards); prohibits them from including wetlands or open water sources; directs the department of environmental conservation to promulgate rules regarding environmental stewardship and lead ammo material reclamation.

3.    Senate Bill 00930/Assembly Bill 01566 – Restricts the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such a weapon; creates a no gun database under the division of criminal justice services.  13 Sponsors; Referred to the Codes Committee on January 3, 2024.
4.    Assembly Bill 03314 – Requires liability insurance for firearm, rifle, and shotgun owners.  Sponsors include five democrats; Referred to Insurance committee on January 3, 2024.

5.    Senate Bill 04150 - Relates to limiting the acquisition of a rifle or shotgun to one every 90-day period.  1 sponsor; Referred to the Consumer Protection Committee on January 3, 2024.

** Bill numbers will change at the start of the next legislative calendar year

SCOPE ACTIONS

• Monitors NY State and local governments for gun legislation.
• Donates to lawsuits to restore our Second Amendment (2A) rights.
• Works with State legislators to sponsor pro 2A legislation.
• Rates politicians on 2A actions and supports pro-2A politicians.
• Synchronizes with other 2A organizations to increase effectiveness.
• Educates politicians and the public on firearms legislation.

    ___________________________________________________________

For the above information in a printable .pdf format; click HERE

Print and share this information at your club and events~

Contact your representatives!

VOTE!

Mark Twain Strikes Again

SCOPE has often quoted Will Rogers for some funny and timeless comments.

Here are some of the same from Mark Twain.

Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.

If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.  (Was Twain a Gannett newspaper subscriber?)

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.(Yep, he was definitely a Gannett subscriber?)

 I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

The secret of getting ahead is getting started. (Or as Yogi Berra might have said, 75% of life is just showing up.)

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. (Was he talking about non-voters?)

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

Let us endeavor so to live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.  (Contrary  to the previous saying.)

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. (Isn’t being great contrary to Equity in Outcomes?)

And if you think only Mark Twain had a sense of humor:
And to show New York State has the same sense of humor as California:
If Twain were still alive, he would agree with the following:
And finally, trust San Francisco to be on the cutting edge of crazy.  Remember the controversy when liberal cities like S.F. created areas for drug addicts to shoot up and began giving out free syringes.  One could almost predict where this will go.  San Francisco now spends $2 million a year (or maybe $5 million) on a “Managed Alcohol Program.” It provides free Alcohol to people struggling with chronic alcoholism who are mostly homeless.  Nurses dispense “controlled doses” of vodka and beer to street people at specific times of the day.

Joshua Trees are a species supposedly threatened by “climate change.” A 2013 study concluded that, as temperatures rise and conditions become drier, it is anticipated that the available habitat for Joshua trees will diminish by as much as 90 percent.

Solar power is viewed as an answer to “climate change.”

4,200 Joshua trees are scheduled to be removed and replaced by solar panels for the Aratina Solar Project near Boron, CA in June of this year.

NY State has been doing everything possible to drive up the cost of electricity.  NY’s goals include cutting electricity use by raising the price and making solar generated electricity more competitive by raising the cost of fossil fuel generated electricity.  In the recent electric bill, there is a credit which is explained as, “This credit is part of New York State’s ongoing efforts to support energy affordability.”

No one will ever accuse the NY State government of being consistent.

If you are okay with having Joe Biden tell you how to raise your children, consider how Hunter turned out.

We picked a bad generation to start WW3.  They can’t even fight anxiety over being called the wrong pronoun.

Memorial Day

I read an article by a man who was in a Nazi death camp as a child.  He remembered that towards the end of the war, the prisoners were deathly afraid that the guards would execute them.  So, when the prisoners were loaded into a box car, they were terrified.

The boy’s father peered through the slats in the side of the car to see what was happening and when he said “there are armed men coming down the road”, there was panic.

But then he said…“It’s the Americans.”

Other than “He is risen,” no three words have ever meant as much to so many people as, “It’s the Americans.” 

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, Ronald Reagan spoke at Point Du Hoc, which is a cliff on the Normandy coast. On D-Day, U S Army rangers scaled that cliff under murderous fire.  They took great casualties, but they took the cliff.  40 years later, in front of Reagan were the living survivors of those rangers.  Reagan praised them and by extension, all the many victories for freedom that “it’s the Americans” have led.

Reagan said, “Behind me is a monument that symbolizes the daggers, thrust into the top of the cliff by the army rangers.  And in front of me are the men who put them there.”

“You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you.  Yet you risked everything here.  Why? Why did you do it?  What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs?  What inspired all the men of the armies that met here?  We look at you, and somehow we know the answer.  It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.”

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next.  It was the deep knowledge – and pray God we have not lost it – that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.  You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause.  And you were right not to doubt.”

“It’s the Americans” who came on D-Day to Point Du Hoc and the liberation of Europe had begun.

In 1966, French President Charles De Gaulle told U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk that De Gaulle wanted "every American soldier out of France." Rusk replied, "Does that include the dead Americans in the military cemeteries as well?" De Gaulle was silent. 

Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher Bob Feller interrupted his career and was one of the first professional baseball players to enlist immediately after Pearl Harbor.  When he was being honored after coming back in 1945, he said, “The real heroes didn’t come home.”

In the American Revolution, 31,000 soldiers and sailors died.  They died for a country that didn’t exist and they would never see.

In the Civil War, 364,000 Union soldiers and sailors died.  They may have fought to save the Union or to free the slaves, or both, but for whatever reason they fought.  Their sacrifices turned the name United States from a plural into a singular and put us on the road to making “all men are created equal,” a fact.

In World War II, 405,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen died.  As Reagan said, they came “to liberate, not to conquer.” 

In all wars, a total of 1,354,000 Americans have died and another 1,498,000 were wounded.

Remember when we proudly said: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  That’s what Americans died for.

America was not founded on slavery. The pilgrims and puritans came here for religious freedom.  That’s what Americans died for.

Before our Constitution, people were “servants of the king” - not  citizens.  11 score and 15 years ago, that changed.  That’s what Americans died for.

You may remember a hit song from years ago: The Impossible Dream.  It sang about righting the unrightable, bearing the unbearable and fighting the unbeatable.  That’s very inspiring but, if you think about it, who would want to do that?  Right the unrightable?  Bear the unbearable? Fight the unbeatable?  That’s crazy.  

But the song also gave a reason to fight: so “My heart will lie peaceful and calm when I’m laid to my rest….and the world will be better for this.” 

Those 1,354,000 Americans who were killed have hearts lying peacefully and calm.  The world was better for them having lived.

It’s a fair statement that everyone now living will eventually be laid to their rest.  Will hearts lie peaceful and calm because they did their duty?   Will the world be better for them having lived?  

America is the last best hope of mankind and worthy of our efforts, past and present, to preserve it.

On Memorial Day, we honor those that gave their lives for our country.  But Lincoln put it best at Gettysburg: “The brave men, living and dead…have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

There is much to be proud of in our history, but there are now foreign and domestic enemies that would destroy the values, traditions and our very Constitution.  In doing so, they also sully the cherished memory of those we honor. 

We didn’t ask for this fight to preserve what they died for, but it has been thrown upon us by those that don’t learn from history or try to twist it for their own purposes. 

Our founders gave us the structure that made the United States the greatest country in the history of the world - if we can keep it.  It’s our right and our duty to preserve our Constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic – and in doing so we meaningfully honor those that fell in our nation’s defense.

The same questions echo across the years for all those called to duty in defense of our nation and our values: We didn’t ask for this fight, but if not us… who?  If not now…when?

We must rise to the challenge so generations yet unborn will remember that whenever our country and all of mankind was threatened, it’s the Americans who rose up to defend it.  And the government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from the earth.

And those future generations will proudly say the same words I end this: God bless the United States of America and all those who died to preserve that nation.

Crime Going Down?

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) published an interesting study covering an 8 years period.

Percent of Violent Crime NOT Involving Guns:

2015   94%

2016   91%

2017   92%

2018   93%

2019   92%

2020   92%

2021   92%

2022   91%

But, but, but, Joe Biden and his Democrat minions say the answer to violent crime is more gun control, even though less than 10% of violent crimes involve guns.  Could they be misleading us in order to promote their policies of disarming law-abiding citizens?  Why not go after the other 90+%?

A SCOPE member sent the above to us.  In researching the background, we found some other interesting information.

The U.S. employs two distinct measures of crime:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting program counts the number of crimes reported to police annually.

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), asks 240,000 people a year whether they have been victims of a crime.

The two measures have diverged since 2020: The FBI has reported less crime, while the NCVS reports that more people say they have been victims.

Taking advantage of this statistical difference, in his State of the Union address this year, President Joe Biden proclaimed: “America is safer today than when I took office…last year, the murder rate saw the sharpest decrease in history, and violent crime fell to one of the lowest levels in more than 50 years.”

Did Joe do battle with the truth (again)?  Why the difference?

Several large cities no longer report crime statistics to the FBI.  As the Washington Examiner notes: “In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population.“ Included in those that no longer report to the FBI are New York City and Los Angeles.

In addition, the CPRC says that FBI is undercounting crimes.  The CPRC cited discrepancies in reports from cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee and Nashville.  The CPRC stated: “This trend is consistent across the board: While 2022’s FBI city-level figures track the police’s own data, the 2023 numbers consistently undercount offense totals. Any year-to-year comparison overstates decline.”

Basically, any year-to-year comparison of crime by the FBI is no longer valid since the basis of comparison has radically changed.  Which means Biden’s statement about the decrease in crime is not valid and the general public perception that crime is an increasing problem is backed up by the National Crime Victimization Survey.  Per CPRC: “While the violent crime rate reported to police fell by 1.7% between 2021 and 2022, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows that total violent crime (reported and non-reported) rose from 16.5 to 23.5 per 100,000.” 

(Put another less gentle way, the general public has a better grasp of the issue than Biden and the Democrats.)

There is also another big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report many crimes.

Why is that?

Per CPRC: “The number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police.”  (Emphasis added.)

The DOJ Crime Victimization report affirms the CPRC statement, but buries it: “Victims may not report a crime for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

If people don’t report crimes because they do not believe anything positive will come of it, is that a reflection on the “soft-on-crime policies of the Left?  And if that is so, could those policies be the reason why liberal media fails to cover non reporting of crime as a reason for the statistical (but not real) drop in crime.

Put another way: do you believe Joe Biden or your lying eyes?