Menu
Log in
SCOPE NY


from our SCOPE membership

  • 01/12/2023 1:58 PM | Anonymous

    Winter is Coming  by Tom m Reynolds

    Winter is coming” was a much-used phrase from Game Of Thrones.  It’s here, as I am sure you know – especially those of you in western NY.

    Here’s something to warm your anger this winter.  It is indirectly 2nd Amendment related (which I’ll explain at the end).  You may be interested in some of the tax increases that will affect your heating bill and were included in the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act”. Think your household energy bills are high now? Just wait until these three major energy taxes hit your wallet.

    The organization Americans for Tax Reform, (ATR) which opposes all tax hikes as a matter of principle, posted some interesting information.

    On Jan. 1, 2023 the following tax hikes took effect:

    $6.5 Billion Natural Gas Tax Which Will Increase Household Energy Bills       

    This is a tax on American oil and gas development’s methane emissions which will drive up the cost of household energy bills. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this natural gas tax will increase taxes by $6.5 billion.

    A letter to Congress from the American Gas Association warned that the methane tax would amount to a 17% increase on an average family’s natural gas bill.

    $12 Billion Crude Oil Tax Which Will Increase Household Costs

    A 16.4 cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil and imported petroleum products will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

    If that isn’t bad enough, it’s been pegged to inflation (and you know what that is doing.)  As inflation increases, so will the tax. (Now you know why the Biden administration isn’t exactly “rabid” about fighting inflation by controlling expenses.)

    The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the provision will raise $12 billion in taxes.

    $1.2 Billion Coal Tax Which Will Increase Household Energy Bills

    This tax hike more than doubles the current excise taxes on coal production:

    The tax rate on coal from subsurface mining would increase from $0.50 per ton to $1.10 per ton

    The tax rate on coal from surface mining would increase from $0.25 per ton to $0.55 per ton.

    JCT estimates that this will raise $1.2 billion in taxes that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

    These taxes were included in the bill despite retail prices for energy hitting all-time highs in the United States.

    The so-called Inflation Reduction Act does provide huge benefits to the renewable energy industry.  Unfortunately, most of us don’t get our heat and electricity from renewable energy.  Perhaps Biden and Congress are not aware that most of our electricity is currently generated by natural gas, oil and coal, the three things on which they are increasing taxes?

    These tax hikes violate President Biden’s tax pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $400,000 per year.  His administration has repeatedly echoed that “promise”.

    On June 21 of last year, Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated: “The President’s pledge was not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 a year. 

    On February 26 of last year, Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stated: “The President’s made a commitment that this administration will not raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year.”

    Energy cost increases are a regressive tax that hits the lowest income sectors of the economy the hardest.  You know…those making less than $400,000 per year.

    We are passing this information on because it is almost invisible on the internet. Try searching the web for “Energy Taxes in the Inflation Reduction Act.”  There are pages after pages of articles on the tax breaks for renewable energy.  Tax increases…not so much. 

    No matter how you feel about the so-called Climate Change agenda, you deserve the full story of related costs and benefits.  (I believe that is the purpose of one of those pesky amendments in the Bill of Rights.)

    How does this tie into 2A gun rights?  This is the same “closet censorship” we see on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights; for instance, try finding web articles on defensive use of guns. 

    When the only information you get omits very important facts, it’s easy to be misinformed.  Most Americans and probably many gun owners don’t have the facts on defensive uses of guns.  By a not so amazing coincidence, it is the same people doing the censoring on these tax increases that censor positive 2A articles. 

    Stay warm!

  • 01/11/2023 2:00 PM | Anonymous

    The Shoe Changes Feet  by Tom Reynolds

    Politicians of all parties seem to have difficulty envisioning long term consequences; they set in motion actions against opponents that can end up biting them back.

    No one but Joe Biden has ever called Joe Biden smart – even though CNN reports that the University of Pennsylvania had been paying him $900,000 per year as an Honorary Professor to teach zero classes.  (And you wonder why college tuitions are so high?)

     I was going to say that only makes him smarter than those who are paying him but – on second thought - it is also a legal way for a college to buy influence with (a term for legally bribe) a public official.  Maybe Penn’s administrators were not so dumb after all, since Biden has been trying desperately to forgive student’s college loans caused by high college tuitions.

    On Monday, January 9th 2023, the Washington Post reported that roughly 10 classified documents were found in Biden’s office in Washington supplied by Penn. These classified documents were discovered on November 2, 2022.

    So, Biden kept classified documents in an office he has been reported as using between 2017 and 2019 - after he left the Vice Presidency.  (This sounds familiar?  Where have we heard something similar?  Isn’t the Biden administration making something big about a similar story?)

    This was – finally - publicly reported on January 9, 2023.  Anything important happen between November 2nd and January 9th?  Perhaps, on November 8, 2022?  Could an immediate announcement after November 2nd have influenced the events of November 8th? 

    And about two weeks later, Attorney General Garland appointed a special prosecutor to oversee a criminal investigation into whether Trump broke the law by having classified records stashed in his Mar-a-Lago estate.

    Let the media’s excuse making begin…

    NBC and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Alene argued, "Big differences between this & Trump's Mar-a-Lago situation: they were found in an office setting, not in Biden's home...It's apples to oranges."  (Doesn’t Trump have both a home and an office in Mar-a-Lago?)

    She is right that some of it is “apples to oranges”.  Mar- a-Lago is protected by the United States Secret Service and Biden’s office was not.  (Ever see the movie Paul Blart: Mall Cop?)

    And a President can declassify documents while a Vice President cannot.  

    Yep.  Definitely “apples to oranges”, but not in the way Arlene makes it out to be.

    Per the Washington Post: “The case will likely draw comparisons to Mar-a-Lago but appears quite different. Officials have said the Trump investigation concerns not just the possible mishandling of classified documents, but possible obstruction of justice or destruction of records.” 

    Don’t you have to have a crime in order to obstruct justice?  If having secret documents isn’t a crime for Biden, why is it a crime for Trump?  And does the Washington Post know, at this time, that Biden did not destroy evidence.  WP – your biases are showing!

    CBS News made sure to say that a source familiar with the situation told them that the documents did not contain nuclear secrets. Previously, Biden said about Trump, “How that could possibly happen? How one – anyone could be that irresponsible?”. “And I thought what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? By that I mean names of people who helped or, et cetera. … totally irresponsible.” 

    It seems that Biden was not accusing Trump of having “nuclear secrets”, either.  So, if Trump did not have “nuclear secrets” but is guilty, why is CBS taking Biden off-the-hook because he did not have “nuclear secrets”.  Sounds like they both were innocent of having “nuclear secrets” but if Trump is guilty of having “other secrets” then isn’t Biden guilty, too.

    As for Biden doing this by accident, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said, “Here’s an individual (who) spent his last 40 years in office.

    McCarthy forgets that some people have 40 years experience while others have one year’s experience 40 times.

    Expect this story to make headlines in the left-leaning media about as long as Hunter Biden’s laptop-from-hell was in the headlines.

    As GOP Rep. James Comer of Kentucky best summed it up, “How ironic.”

  • 01/09/2023 12:23 PM | Anonymous

    BATFE Funding  by Tom Reynolds

    The $1.7 billion Omnibus bill, that was just passed, included special funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (BATFE formerly ATF.)  $2 billion has been allocated to help the BATFE move on various forms of gun control.

    • Encourage VA medical centers to confiscate Firearms owned by veterans;
    • Keep notes on the exact location of veteran’s firearms through their “gun storage maps” program.

    The National Disposal Branch (NDB) is a branch of the BATFE and was created to destroy guns confiscated or used as crime evidence.  (Average, 23,000 each year.)

    Part of the funding was to help the NDB follow the requirements with respect to its handling of the guns  scheduled to be destroyed.  Will money overcome bureaucratic complacency or is it rewarding incompetence? 

    For example:

    BATFE instructs firearms dealers (FFL’s) on how to avoid the theft of firearms.  But a former NDB Security Guard used the NDB’s stored firearms to create his own business. (Who said entrepreneurship was dead?)  He was stealing firearms from the facility where he worked and reselling them, after falsely certifying them as destroyed.  It wasn’t difficult because the NDB was not doing what it told FFL’s to do.  (Do as I say – not as I do?)

    Liberals (gun grabbers by another name) have criticized drug laws as discouraging illegal drug users from seeking help.  Showing their usual lack of consistency, those same liberals don’t seem to care as much about veterans.  The Omnibus bill includes funding for the Veteran’s Administration to:

    Ammoland reports that the primary use of the $2 billion will be $700 million to encourage states to pass Red Flag Laws.  (Remember when liberals believed in civil rights?  You know, those pesky amendments in the Bill of Rights that are now part of the United States Constitution.)

    Ammoland also reports that some funding is for programs designed to discourage women from exercising their Second Amendment right.  (Can you imagine a government funded program to discourage people from exercising their 1st amendment right to free speech?  Hmm…actually I can.)

    Running directly afoul of the goal of the Omnibus Bill, SCOPE is promoting an organization called Armed Women of America.  We’ve added their link to the front page of our web site and there is more about them on the Steuben County Chapter’s web page.

  • 01/04/2023 10:43 AM | Anonymous

    GOA Lawsuits

    On Monday SCOPE updated you about the Antonyuk vs Nigrelli law suit and on Tuesday about the Gazzola vs Hochul law suit. 

    Today, we are going to do something very unusual.

    SCOPE does not make frequent or overt calls for contributions - as many other organizations do.  It’s not that SCOPE doesn’t need the money – we do.  In the past, our members have been generous without being asked.

    Today, we are asking you to make contributions to GOA-NY towards the costs of these lawsuits. Not many organizations will ask people to donate to someone else.  But we all have the same goal and if they can achieve it, it's a victory for all of us. 

    These lawsuits are very important in our fight against the unconstitutional 2A efforts of Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature’s gun grabbers.  As you know, the court system is our main – and perhaps currently our only – way in NY to stop these unconstitutional abominations.

    You can send a check (include a comment “GOA”) and we will pass the money on. 
    Mail to:

    SCOPE
    PO Box 165
    East Aurora, NY 14052

    Or, donate on line through our web site:  Be sure and enter “GOA” in the comment section.

    DONATE HERE

    The fastest way is to donate directly to GOA-NY

    Gun Owners of America – New York – Molon Labe

    Under “Note” please add SCOPE so GOA knows it is coming from a SCOPE member.

    You can also send a check to:

    GOA-NY,
    PO Box 25532,
    Rochester, NY 14625

    Please add the comment “SCOPE” so GOA
    knows it is coming from a SCOPE member.

     


  • 01/03/2023 10:26 AM | Anonymous

    Gazzola vs Hochul  by Tom Reynolds

    On November 30th, SCOPE sent an email to members about Gazzola v Hochul, one of the lawsuits filed against Hochul’s unconstitutional gun laws. On December 5th, we sent a follow up email on it. They are available on our website scopeny2a.org under “Briefings” and provide more detail.

    The lawsuit challenges thirty-one inter-connected statutes that contain many new mandates impacting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) as both individuals and businesses. The thirty-one statutory provisions being challenged originated in four Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022.

    The 31 statutes are an attempt to drive many New York FFL’s out of business by increasing the cost of doing business and, thus, leaving fewer legal places to buy firearms in NY. They would also drive up prices in the gun stores that remain open. These new laws bury the FFL’s in paperwork and give the anti-2A NY government the opportunity to find an error in the paperwork, so the FFL’s license can be revoked.

    The Gun Writer reports that in the years before the Biden-Harris administration took over the White House, the ATF usually revoked an average of 40 Federal Firearm Licenses per year. But, in the first 18 months of the Biden administration, the ATF has revoked 273 FFLs.

    If successful, Hochul certainly hopes that other anti-2A states follow her example, so she can say that “New York is leading”; (leading in infringing on our rights.)

    The lawsuit charges: “…the new laws collectively impair and impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and to host a gun show, and to serve as a conduit for those seeking to exercise their fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The new laws also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, including the right against self-incrimination.”

    Some of the specific issues cited in the lawsuit:

    • The NYS Police become the “Point of Contact” for the federal NICS background check;
    • A “security plan,” including a “safe,” “vault,” or “secured and locked area on the dealer’s business premises” and the separate storage of ammunition is required;
    • A very expensive “security alarm system” is required;
    • No entry of persons under eighteen years of age without a parent or legal guardian;
    • Mandatory, semi-annual submission of the Book of Acquisitions and Dispositions (A&D Book) to the NYS Police;
    • Access to inventory records “at any time” by “law enforcement agencies;”
    • Authorization to the Superintendent of the NYS Police to “…promulgate such additional rules and regulations as the superintendent shall deem necessary...”
    • Restriction against the sale of body vests;
    • Establishing a new, standardized, classroom and live-fire course and test necessary for concealed carry handgun permits;
    • Need a license to purchase a semi-automatic rifle;
    • Requirement of an ammunition background check.
    • DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
    • PRE-EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW
    • VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
    • CONSTITUTIONAL-REGULATORY OVERBURDEN

    This lawsuit charges NY State with:

    Gazzola asked for a declaratory judgment that all thirty-one (31) new laws, rules, and regulations shall be struck down.

    Not trusting the Hochul administration, the lawsuit further requested: “…the appointment of a special referee or magistrate to monitor any actions by the Defendants and other associated offices and agencies…to monitor any claims of future Defendant compliance with their responsibilities…”

    A hearing was held on December 1st before Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief U.S. District Judge. She was an Obama appointment in 2014. (She is one of the results of gun owners who don’t vote.)

    The attorney for the plaintiffs is Paloma Capanna.

    Judge Sannes quickly denied the lawsuit’s request for temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to stop the laws from going into effect.

    This decision does not stop the lawsuit from going forward but does stop an injunction from temporarily halting its enforcement.

    Frankly, the chances of winning in NY State have always been slim but this is such a slap-in-the-face to the Bruen ruling that it should do well if it gets before the U S Supreme Court.

    An Emergency Motion for a hearing before the U S Supreme Court has been filed, including a “Rule 11 Petition for Writ of Certiorari” because the case is of national interest.

    Reports are coming in that the U S Supreme Court may take up several NY State gun cases on an expedited basis. Let’s hope so!

  • 01/02/2023 7:28 PM | Anonymous

    Antonyuk vs Somebody  by Tom Reynolds

    Antonyuk vs Bruen was formerly renamed Antonyuk vs Hochul and is now renamed Antonyuk vs Nigrelli (Nigrelli is the new head of the NYS Police).  It is one of the big lawsuits against Hochul’s unconstitutional Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).  The CCIA affects New York State Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). 

    Antonyuk is being primarily funded by Gun Owners of America (GOA) in this expensive legal endeavor.  SCOPE has contributed toward the expenses.

    A statement in one legal filing defines the situation very well: “…the CCIA is…breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality.”

    It is worth noting that the lawsuit is filed in Federal Court and not in the NYS Court system since the latter is filled with Cuomo appointees.  It also expedites its trip to the US Supreme Court. Of course, the federal courts have many Clinton, Obama and Biden appointees to get past.  Thankfully, there are also judges nominated by Reagan, the Bushes and Trump.  Elections do have consequences.

    As it has bounced through the legal system between Circuit Courts and District Courts, there have been a number of judicial opinions going in opposite directions.  See SCOPE email of November 17th which laid out the situation at that time.   S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Playing Ping Pong with Gun Owners (scopeny2a.org)  We won’t try to take you through the confusing numbers of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays as Antonyuk is still alive and fighting its way through the judicial system.

    Instead, we will give you the current status, as we understand it.  What the law is today.  (Disclaimer, SCOPE does not give legal advice.  You are reading a non-attorney’s interpretation of the situation, bolstered by several articles in reputable journals and conversations with an attorney.)

    CCIA is currently New York State law - at this moment - even though it is working its way through the legal system.  The NYS government can – currently - enforce these amendments to the State’s Gun Law during CCIA’s current judicial journey.

    There is a minor exception:  the “Sensitive Locations” prohibitions to airports, places of worship, and private buses are temporarily not in force.  (But no civilian may carry a firearm in airports under federal law.) Houses of worship and private buses can devise their own rules for the carrying of firearms.  All other CCIA “Sensitive Location” provisions remain in force – at this moment.

    After the CCIA was allowed to stay in force, an Emergency Petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse the 2nd Circuit Court’s ruling and, in effect, put a hold on enforcement of CCIA.  (We’ll keep you informed of this as events unfold.)

    Each U.S. Supreme Court Justice oversees certain circuits and that justice deals with Emergency Petitions from that circuit.  Probably unfortunately, Justice Sotomayor – who is not 2A friendly - oversees the Second Circuit.  But she has allowed the case to proceed and gave NYS until January 3rd to respond.   

    Sotomayer had criticized the Supreme Court for overturning precedents when it overturned Roe v Wade on abortion.  Sotomayer dissented in the Bruen decision but it is now precedent.  So, the question is whether she will disregard the Bruen decision precedent – or not.  (Sotomayer, like most of the liberal leadership, is not big on consistency when consistency gets in the way of their ambition.)     

    Once New York State files its response, there isn’t a timeline for Sotomayer’s ruling or the next step.  And where it goes after the Sotomayer decision depends on the decision, so that is the subject for another e mail, sometime after January 3rd.   (Note today’s date!)

  • 12/22/2022 10:30 AM | Anonymous

    A Christmas To Remember  by Tom Reynolds

    The July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence from Great Britain had real world consequences for the signers.  One of them, Benjamin Rush, recalled: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

    While independence was being celebrated in Philadelphia, 23,000 British soldiers and 10,000 Hessian mercenaries were being unloaded from ships in NYC Harbor, where George Washington, by order of the Continental Congress, had to defend it.  At some level, Washington must have known that the city was not defendable against the combined army and naval forces of Great Britain.

    On August 26th, the first battle began on Long Island and the right wing of the American forces was about to be cut off and destroyed.  But a group of Americans who were variously called “Washington’s Immortals” and the “Maryland 400” did not retreat. Instead, they made a suicidal charge which bought time and allowed the American army to survive.  For their efforts, the Americans were bayoneted by the Hessians.

    A large portion of the American army had retreated to Brooklyn with the East River at their backs.  The British generals did not recognize the appalling state of the Americans and, more importantly, remembered their horrendous losses taking Bunker Hill. So, they laid siege and used the Royal Navy to attempt to cut off the East River from retreat.

    Washington’s only chance was to cross the mile wide East River - with its treacherous tidal currents - to the temporary safety of Manhattan.  Security was airtight and so secret that John Glover, the leader of the “Marblehead Regiment” of mariners that would ferry the army across, was not told of the purpose until it was time to man the boats. The boats were a combination of rowed and sailed boats.  The crossing would be made in total darkness in a horrendous rain storm with the mariners depending on their experience to guide them to the other shore. 

    The tides and winds cooperated for the first two hours and multiple crossings went well.  Then, the tides and winds shifted, and the mariners were unsuccessfully rowing against tides and wind, making it impossible to complete the retreat before sunrise and the British becoming aware of what was happening.  Suddenly, the winds died and shortly thereafter shifted in the American’s favor.

    When dawn arose, Americans were still in Brooklyn, but a thick fog covered the Brooklyn side, but not the Manhattan side.  A fog was very unusual at that time of the year and it hid the Americans and allowed the complete evacuation.  Only one boat and three men were captured by the British.

    Eventually, the colonial army was completely driven out of New York and it retreated across New Jersey to a place in Pennsylvania called Valley Forge, where things became even more desperate.

    The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments.  Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months.  Food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

    There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up.  Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

    On the early evening of December 25, 1776, with the temperature barely above freezing and in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and they crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups.  The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group, that did make it across, turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

    Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the  army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.  Officers reported to Washington that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

    While the enemy was yawning and waking up, what looked like the army-from-hell had come screaming from the depths to kill them; the Continental Army was in rags with long hair and matted beards coated in rain and mud.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

    In what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope.  When his officers despaired, he never lost sight of his goal.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today; we’re Americans, we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our country’s enemies. 

    Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism.  All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence and the physical courage for the “Maryland 400” to make a suicidal attack. As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be honored, not denigrated.

    Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution: the unusual fog covering the retreat from Brooklyn, for instance.  At times, God is on our side.  Another reason to be thankful this Christmas.

    Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the elections.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

    We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle. 

    Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

    Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism?  Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? 

    Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

    When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.  Our forefathers were willing to pay that price and we need to join with them. Are you willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family?  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

  • 12/20/2022 10:53 AM | Anonymous

    O Canada  by Tom Reynolds

    On November 29th, SCOPE wrote about Joe Biden’s struggles with the truth.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Biden’s Meanderings (scopeny2a.org)  Then on December 12th, we wrote how the news media tends to give a heavy leftward slant to the news, so the lies and mis-information of Biden, and other Liberals, do not reach the majority of Americans.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Pit Bulls and Propaganda (scopeny2a.org) 

    Lying is not limited to just the United States.  Not facing blowback on their lies, Liberals worldwide are empowered to double down.  Our neighbor to the north is no exception.

    The liberal movement to ban all guns from civilian ownership is alive and well in Canada.  Their gun grabbers are like American gun grabbers in that they keep coming back with more attempts at gun control.  And like American Liberals, they can’t stop lying about what they are doing.

    For example, Canadian proposed law Bill C-21 got an amendment that included a schedule of long guns to be criminalized.  Trying to hide what they are doing, Liberals deny that any hunting arms will be caught in the ban, even though this is easily shown to be a lie.

    Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino tweeted: “Don’t believe the hype. We are focusing on assault-style firearms, not hunting rifles.”

    Bill C-21 goes beyond even the most charitable definition of the term “assault style,” which in Canada typically refers to rifles with pistol grips, black coloring, semi-automatic action and other military-inspired aesthetics. Dozens of firearm models included in the Bill C-21 amendments have wood stocks and actions that do not allow rapid fire.

    “Mendicino said in the House of Commons: “We are not targeting law-abiding gun owners. We are not targeting guns that are commonly used for hunting.”

    The Bill C-21 ban list applies to law-abiding gun owners; it seeks to criminalize behavior that has previously been legal and regulated. Of course, the proposed legislation has no effect whatsoever on Canada’s gun criminals, who have already abandoned their adherence to firearms legislation.

    Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi said: “We respect the sustenance rights of Indigenous peoples. We are not targeting those rights whatsoever.”

    C-21 proposes to ban quite a few firearms that are currently in active use among Indigenous hunters, trappers and outfitters. While Bill C-21 doesn’t place any specific curbs on Indigenous hunting rights, it will obviously affect the ability of Indigenous Canadians to hunt as it would become a crime to have their guns outside the home, without explicit authorization.

    Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed tweeted: “Let’s be clear: we’re not banning hunting rifles & shotguns.”

    In 2020, the Trudeau government banned more than 1,500 types of firearms that it deemed to be “assault-style;” the list was largely driven by aesthetics. This time around, the ban is so sweeping that it will criminalize the gun of hunters who have avoided firearms that carry even a whiff of military aesthetic.

    Mendicino also said  that the bill will only “go after those AR-15-style firearms that were used in the likes of Polytechnique

    Ecole Polytechnique was a 1989 mass shooting in which 14 people were murdered by a Ruger Mini-14, not an AR 15. (The official coroner’s report into the massacre concluded that the rate of fire was immaterial to the number of victims, and that the gunman likely could have murdered just as many with a bolt action rifle.)  Bill C-21 would ban numerous firearms that could not be more different from an AR-15, including several antique models of break-action shotguns.

    Liberal MP Pam Damoff said in the House of Commons: “The government has been very clear that it is not targeting the guns commonly used for hunting.”

    Bill C-21 does ban many guns “commonly used for hunting.” However, the law's defenders claim it’s possible that the legislation’s creators weren’t intending to do so.  (Oops, I didn’t know the gun was loaded?)  Apparently, many of those pushing Bill C-21 know little about firearms. Liberal MP Michael McLeod, a hunter and gun collector and a tentative opponent of Bill C-21, said he’s often in caucus meetings with urban Liberals who “see guns from a city/urban standpoint and look at it through that lens.”

    At SCOPE we tend to focus on laws and actions that directly affect firearms but those that indirectly affect us are just as dangerous to our rights.  We cannot lose sight of the impact of the Liberal media on most people.  I’ll bet Canadians are mostly reading about C-21 not affecting hunting.

  • 12/16/2022 10:59 AM | Anonymous

    Supreme Court and Contracts  by Tom Reynolds

    There is much controversy, name calling, misinformation and confusion in the liberal media over the U. S. Supreme Court, because of some recent decisions.  The core issue is actually much simpler to understand than often presented.  Let’s try to simplify things. 

    Examples make the points clearer:

    Suppose you agreed to buy a house for $100,000 but, at the closing, the seller wanted $105,000 because of inflation between the signing of the contract and the closing.

    An “originalist” judge (as are 4 or 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court) believes that contracts mean what the parties understood them to mean when they were created; what the signers intended them to mean.  He’d decide on $100,000 as the selling price. 

    Leftist judges believe in a flexible contract, (as do 3 liberal judges on the Supreme Court), where the current social, political and economic consequences are more important than the intentions of the signers.  A contract doesn’t mean what the signers understood it to mean but can be reinterpreted by judges in the name of “Social Justice”.  He’d probably rule that $105,000 is the selling price.  (That you only have a $100,000 mortgage is your problem.)  

    Another example:

    Suppose that in 1950, your grandfather gave $10 million to Syracuse University for an endowment to fund “scholarships for Syracuse University football players”.  The president of Syracuse agreed, in writing, to the terms.

    In 2020, Syracuse University used some of the money to fund scholarships for Syracuse University women soccer players.  As the grandchild, you objected and it went to court to be settled.

    An “originalist” judge will rule that the contract meant American football as it was understood to mean by your grandfather and Syracuse University.  Football is still basically American football as your grandfather knew it.  As laudable as the University’s intentions may or may not be, it is bound by the terms of the contract, as understood by the signers.

    Leftist judges might rule that the endowment does cover women’s soccer.  Soccer is known in other countries as football; American soccer players participate in international football tournaments. And, under a federal law, women now must have more access to sports and this would help the University comply with the social justice aspects of the law; the current university president must deal with changing times and not be handcuffed by a 70 years old agreement.   Current University administrators cannot be constrained as they adjust to current society’s needs (as they and the judge see them, not as your grandfather saw them.) 

    If the leftist judge’s rulings became generally accepted, contract law would be meaningless and a basic underpinning of society would be destroyed.

    Now, apply that to US Supreme Court decisions.

    The US Constitution is a contract.  In 1789, a contract was drawn up between the people of the 13 states, the states themselves and the federal government.  It created the federal government and spelled out what the federal government could and could not do.  All 13 states signed on to it.  When new states joined the union, per the method laid out in the Constitution, they agreed to abide by the Constitution.

    Under the United States Constitution, we have the ability to change it through the amendment process.  If enough people believe that society has changed enough to make some part of the Constitution – or all of it – no longer appropriate, we can change it. 

    The process is not easy, in order to prevent fads.  Our Declaration of Independence tells us why: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”   (Those Founding Fathers were really smart…and they didn’t even have access to the internet.)

    Until amended, the Constitution means what it meant when it was signed.

    This, of course, ties the hands of the left who want only to be bound by their unbounded ambition.

    The Constitution has worked very well and has transformed the United States into the most powerful economic and military society in the history of the world.  It’s worked.  Tweak it through amendments, but recognize that its core values are still valid. 

    We haven’t been perfect but what product of mankind has been perfect?

    And when we identified a problem that needed changing under the Constitution, we amended it; the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments for example.

    And if we made a mistake in amending it, the 18th Amendment for example, we repealed it, (the 21st Amendment).  But while the 18th Amendment was the law of the land, the government enforced it and those that skirted it were criminals.

  • WHY

    12/15/2022 5:41 PM | Anonymous

    WHY  by Tom Reynolds

    Why is it unamerican for the Census to count Americans?

    Why is Russia influencing American elections not okay but illegal aliens voting in American elections is okay?

    Why was Biden blackmailing Ukraine’s president okay but Trump asking about it is an impeachable offense?

    Why is a man pretending to be a woman okay and we have to also pretend it’s okay?

    Why is there no such thing as gender but we need a female president?

    Why is it that 20 year old’s cannot drink beer or buy semi-automatic guns in New York State but 18 year old’s can vote?

    Why should people who have never been slave holders pay reparations to people who have never been slaves?

    Why is it that we are responsible for things that happened before we were born but criminals are not responsible for their current activities?

    Why is it that people who never went to college should pay off the college loans of people who went to college?

    Why is it that if you cheat to get into college you go to prison but if you cheat to get into America you go to college for free?

    Why is it racist to refer to Covid as the China Virus even though it started in China but it is okay to label violence as gun violence?

    Why is killing murderers wrong but killing unborn babies okay?

    Why are Republican “election deniers” bad but a 2016 “election denier” can be the Democrat House Minority leader?

    Just asking for a friend.

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software