The War On Hunting  by Tom Reynolds

Biden's war on hunting continues.

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

The background on this is from Fox News*:

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

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

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

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

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

Not to be outdone, New York State strikes again…

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

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

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

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

               and not on

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

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

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

Per the NY Department of Environmental Conservation:  

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

Per the NY City Environmental Protection web page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy Backs  by Tom Reynolds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bear Spray  by Tom Reynolds

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah?  So what is Kristof’s alternative?

“…bear spray instead of a gun.”

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

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

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

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

Oops!

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

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

This articles votes for bear spray.

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

This article votes for a gun.

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

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

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

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

One Day’s News  by Tom Reynolds

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

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

Conservative states had the highest fertility rates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it could be worse.  We could be France.

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

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

Let’s go Bran….oops

Polls, Studies and Other Lies  by Tom Reynolds

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

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

1.     1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

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

3.     1970: Ice Age By 2000

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

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

6.     1972: New Ice Age By 2070

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

8.     1974: Another Ice Age?

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

10.  1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

11.  1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

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

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

14.  1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

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

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

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

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

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

20.  2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

21.  2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

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

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

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

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

26.  2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015

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

 

·       1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

·       1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

·       1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

·       1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years

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

·       1980: Peak Oil In 2000

·       1996: Peak Oil in 2020

·       2002: Peak Oil in 2010

·       2006: Super Hurricanes!

·       2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

·       1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

·       1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

·       1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish

·       1970s: Killer Bees!

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

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

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

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

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

·       2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

·       2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

·       2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Lawsuits Everywhere  by Tom Reynolds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuits challenging long times to get licenses

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

Other lawsuits

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

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

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

A Concurrence Worth Read  by Tom Reynolds

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

Judge James C. Ho wrote in his concurrence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

Guns and Restraining Orders  by Tom Reynolds

We all want to stop violent people from injuring or killing others.  But this often involves legal action against a person before they have committed a crime and may infringe on constitutionally protected rights (most often the 2nd Amendment).  We recognize that these are serious issues and we want to solve them in a way that is constitutional.  But instead of focusing on solving the issue, the Left uses these situations as an opportunity to take away more of our rights. Red Flag Laws are usually a good example of leftist overreach but another recent court opinion focused on ‘Restraining Orders’.

Three decades ago, Congress enacted a law prohibiting gun possession by people who are subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders. On its surface, that seems reasonable.  But as the legal battle over that rule shows, the reality is that judges often issue such orders without any credible evidence that the respondent poses a danger.

Following that reasoning, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that those under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders do not lose their Second Amendment right to bear arms.  It said the federal law barring those alleged abusers from possessing guns is unconstitutional.  (The Biden Administration is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.)

Most people’s first reaction is that we want to keep weapons out of dangerous people’s hands and leftist web sites immediately saw a propaganda opportunity when they posted headlines such as, “Domestic Abusers Can Now Own Guns Too.” 

Getting past our initial emotional rection - and as with most things the Left propagandizes - there is much more to it than an inflammatory headline.  Although the 5th Circuit Court’s opinion was based on the Supreme Court’s ‘Bruen’ decision that gun control laws must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”, the 5th Circuit also brought up other important issues.

Judge James Ho notes in a concurring opinion, "Family court judges may face enormous pressure to grant civil protective orders—and no incentive to deny them."

What is he referring to?

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders have a history of being easily abused.  Who says so?  Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, who put it this way: “It is not surprising that restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply,"  

Where does this pressure to grant restraining Orders come from?

Even when there is a minimal possibility that someone might assault a spouse or other "intimate partner," when combined with the negative publicity and career consequences that assault might cause the judge, this tends to overshadow the risk of infringing on a constitutionally protected right.  The 2nd Amendment reverts to a 2nd class right.

Judge Ho further says that Restraining Orders are "a tempting target for abuse…they can help parties in divorce cases obtain favorable rulings on ‘critical issues."

Family and matrimonial attorney Liz Mandarano agreed: “Because they are incredibly easy to obtain, orders of protection are misused." Mandarano cited studies suggesting that unfounded abuse allegations are common, accounting for most protective orders in some jurisdictions.

Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk notes that "many divorce lawyers routinely recommend pursuit of civil protection orders for clients in divorce proceedings…as a tactical leverage device."

Judge Cory Wilson notes in the 5th Circuit decision, is that people can lose their Second Amendment rights even if they have no history of violence, based on nothing more than “a domestic restraining order that contains boilerplate language.”

That outcome, Judge Ho says, "may be especially perverse considering the common practice of 'mutual' protective orders": A judge "may see no downside in forbidding both parties from harming one another," including the victim of domestic abuse as well as the perpetrator. In such cases, Ho writes, the law "effectively disarms victims of domestic violence," potentially putting them "in greater danger than before."

It is imperative that this issue be addressed in order to protect people and protect their constitutional rights.  But that solution would interfere with the Left’s intention of doing away with the 2nd Amendment, so ‘bipartisanship’ is unlikely. This uncaringly puts people in harm’s way in order to achieve one of the Left’s goals.

Does My Vote Really Count?  by Joe Atkinson

In simple terms, YES!

There are an estimated 5 million gun owners in NYS and we estimate only 1.3 million of us voted. (3.7 million did not vote.)  Just think what the outcome would’ve been if we all voted our rights to own a firearm. Zeldin lost by about 378,000 votes.

In more complicated terms, there are major problems with the election system in New York State.

New York Citizens Audit (NYCA) sent Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) and the 62 county boards of election in NY state asking for voter and election records from 2020.  They received a complete record from the NYSBOE and 7 counties but 42 counties only gave them part of what they asked for.  The remainder did not respond at all.

There are 3 basic tenets of an election:

1)    Voter rolls must be accurate.

2)    Votes counted must be from qualified voters.
3)    The number of votes must equal the number of voters.

• No residential address in the registration data.

• Votes recorded before the registration date.  That is, they voted before they were registered.  Is it a clerical error, or database manipulation? All we know is that these voters are ineligible because of the NYS Election Laws.

• Votes recorded after the purge date; they voted after their registration was purged. 

• Voter records purged with no purge date.  If there’s no purge date, votes can be created using a voter’s ID and we don’t know if they were created before or after they were purged. It leaves a huge window for fraud.

• Voters who voted before their date of birth shows them to be 18 years old.

• Voters who registered after the registration cut-off date but still voted.

When processing the data from the NYSBOE, the NY Citizens Audit researchers found the following anomalies:

Under NYS Election Law each registrant is only supposed to have one NYS Voter ID number. 2,427,827 New York State Voter ID numbers were attached to 1,170,790 registrants. That means there are 1,257,037 excess voter ID numbers in the system. We call these people “Clones”.

“Clones” are single person registrants with multiple New York State Voter ID numbers. They have the same First and Last Name and Date of Birth. These persons probably don’t know that they have multiple numbers. Somewhere between the County Boards of Election and the NYS Board of Elections, these multiple state voter ID numbers are created.     

Between 1900 to 2021 a total of 987,490 voters registered on January 1^st, which is a Federal Holiday and government offices are closed.

1.9 million more registrations on the state voter rolls than on the county voter rolls. 

625,359 more registrations than voting-age citizens in just 6 counties.

740,396 ineligible votes statewide in 2020

338,356 more votes cast than voters who voted in 2020. (Combined Federal and all 50 states)

195,271 votes cast in New York City by voters who were not in the ‘NYSVoter’ database in Albany. This means that these votes show up in the New York City voter records, but do not show up in the NYSVoter database in Albany.

Some of these clones have voted!  Some may have, without knowing it, double voted.  How could it happen?  Somewhere between the County Boards of Election and the NYS Board of Elections, these multiple votes are created in the system.

In my county there are 735 clones and 16 have voted. The worst case is a clone that double voted 8 times between 2010 and 2020. (Someone else used their number to vote or created the votes by hacking the database.)

No one is immune!  7% of our NYS Assemblyman are clones. It doesn’t matter what party they’re in.  The worst case I know of is an assemblyperson who is high ranking in their party and has 4 numbers; 2 registered in their party and 2 registered in another party.

There are other reasons that voters can be ineligible to vote based on their registrations:

Does my vote count?  The complicated answer to the question is still YES. But there are issues in the system that dilute the value of our votes. Until these and other issues are fixed, it is imperative on each one of us to make sure that we all vote to help overcome the dilution of the value of each individual’s vote.

As a lawful gun owner, I’m scared to see that my right to self-defense is being eroded away by an election system that can be easily rigged because my vote’s value is diluted by ineligible votes being cast in opposition to my own vote.

Note: I am a strike team leader for New York Citizens Audit in Chemung County along with being a member of SCOPE. New York Citizens Audit is an all-volunteer grassroots organization whose mission is to fight for honest and provable elections. Our goal is to have an end-to-end audit of the entire election system conducted by a bonded and insured independent auditor. If you would like either a summary of our findings or a more detailed report called “New York’s 2020 General Election: A Study in Deficits”, I can be reached at Taskforce@stny.rr.com. Or you can go to our website at www.auditny.com. Recordings of our presentations can be seen on Rumble. Type “New York Citizens Audit News” in the search box.

You might be a hoplophobe …  by Dr Robert Young

[Editor’s Note: Dr. Young recently collaborated on this piece on hoplophobia and its effects.  The article was first published as “What Gun-Haters Feel” at the Slow Facts blog by Rob Morse, who also co-hosts The Polite Society Podcast. It is edited for publication here with permission.] 

I don’t like horror movies.  There is nothing attractive about sitting and waiting for the monster to jump out of the dark screen at me, even though the fear is irrational.  Hoplophobes are people who have an irrational fear of firearms.  What is it like for them as they wait for their monster to attack, and can they be helped?

…if you have an irrational fear of inanimate objects

People with irrational fears of guns express those fears in several ways.  They may experience guns as having lives of their own.  They think a gun will jump off the dark shelf and attack on its own.

These exaggerations can seem funny to gun owners.  Many of us take our friends shooting.  We start them with low powered .22 rimfire weapons.  These come in every size from child to adult.  If they want more, there are mid-power firearm such as the .223.  Originally designed to shoot small pests, this rifle throws a light bullet with little recoil.  It can fit most adults when outfitted with an adjustable stock and comb.

Perhaps you caught on: we’ve just described the dreaded “assault rifle”.. as well as dozens of other firearms we’ve had for a hundred years.  The hoplophobe sees them as death-dealing murder machines, though it remains a “girl’s gun” to many of us.  Unfortunately, hoplophobia doesn’t end there.   

…if you displace your anxieties onto others in order to feel better

Hoplophobes empower firearms in other ways.  They invest these inanimate objects with the power to cloud men’s minds.  They believe that guns sing an irresistible siren song that can seduce healthy people to unimaginable violence.  They attribute evil intent more to guns than to those who wield them.  Projecting this kind of influence onto guns may actually demonstrate the gun-hater’s fear of his neighbors.  Such fear can be an oblique confession of the gun-haters’ own lack of self-control.  They are displacing their own anxieties onto others in order to feel better about themselves.

…if your irrational attitude towards guns prevents you from addressing them logically

Condemnation plays an important part in their battle against irrational fear.  The more strongly they exaggerate the power of firearms, the more energetic their attacks against gun and gun owners, the less they feel controlled by their fear.  They empower the monster in order to vanquish it.  That sounds irrational to most of us, but hoplophobes can’t address firearms logically because of the overwhelming irrationality of their relationship to these devices of plastic and metal.

…if you proclaim your feelings about guns as loudly as possible

Many hoplophobes are unusually loud in their condemnation of guns and gun owners.  Compare that to other fears we experience.  We don’t hear people who are afraid of dogs or spiders condemn those animals with the vehemence that hoplophobes show for guns and gun owners.

Wealthy gun-phobics have spent scores of millions of dollars on their attacks.  There may be method to their madness, some purpose to their high-pitched volume.  What if these professional gun-haters are not afraid of guns at all?  Professional actors are not afraid of monsters when they are off screen.  The fear that movie actors portray in front of a camera is simply part of a role they play.

What if the professional gun-haters are more like actors playing to elicit our fears of guns and violence?  They want us feel the emotions they portray in front of the news cameras.  They want us to join in their tribal chant to slay the evil gun monster.  This may also help explain why so many paid gun-haters have armed security guards protecting them where they live and work.

…if you have difficulty facing the idea of violence and injury

There is a more sympathetic way to understand avoidance of firearms.  All guns are potentially lethal.  As I explained to a young nurse who had just taken her first shots, all guns can kill, some more surely than others.   Do you remember the videos they showed about car crashes in driver’s education class?  Not fun.  Imagining the use of lethal force is not attractive for most of us.  Our respect for life is a good thing that we shouldn’t want to lose.  This reluctance to look at human injury and death has important implications, both good and bad.

Most of us will never be violent towards another person.  Unfortunately, we can carry that innocence too far.  Some may be unable to respond aggressively even when that would be the only healthy response.  They may reject the tools that would be needed so that they needn’t ever face their inadequacy.

…if you project your aversion to violence onto those who have to make split-second decisions

It takes great emotional maturity to observe violence, injury and death, especially when they result from hard choices that we or someone else had to make.    We may also find ourselves reluctant to honor a guardian who does stop an evil act by means of lethal force.  We may so need to imagine there can always be a perfect and peaceful outcome that we denigrate the guardian’s unavoidable decision.

Emotional wisdom accepts that peaceful outcomes are not always possible.  A peaceful outcome might mean surrender, and sometimes the cost of surrender is too high.  We know we should only use force proportional to the risk.  We only use lethal force to protect human life.  We have to remember the people a guardian saved as well as those he could not or was forced to hurt.

…if you claim your feelings supersede the autonomy and safety of others

The professional media campaign against guns and gun owners makes some very bold claims.  Hoplophobes claim that their uneasiness around armed civilians is more important than the right of ordinary people to be able to protect themselves.  Their fear is supposedly more important than our lives, our families, and our communities.  These gun-phobes claim they know what is best for all of us.  The result is that they treat gun owners as ignorant, less than equal and not worthy of respect. That is degrading, and demands an unjust sacrifice from everyone else to placate their irrational fear.

These fears need to be faced in ourselves and others.  Only then can we make healthy decisions and live safer, less fearful lives.

 

Note: Dr. Young is one of the speakers at SCOPE’s Members’ Meeting on April 29^th in Montour Falls.