One Man One Vote by Tom Reynolds

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the most liberal SCOTUS that the USA has ever had and, hopefully, ever will. Many of the divisive issues we face today are directly related to rulings during Warren’s reign. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II accused the Warren Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process.

One of the Warren Court’s worst decisions was Reynolds v Sims, which ignored the Constitution in order to remove political power from conservative rural areas and give it to liberal cities; it’s known as “one man one vote”.

• In 1946, before Warren was appointed to SCOTUS, in Colegrove v. Green the court continued its long-standing position that legislative apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should NOT intrude.

• In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Warren Court ignored SCOTUS’ own precedent and forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.

• In 1964, using its own Baker v. Carr precedent to validate its action, the Warren Court cited the Baker case as a precedent and held in Reynolds v Sims that both houses of a two-house legislature had to be apportioned according to population. This is known as “one man one vote”.

As a result of Reynolds v Sims, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing rural areas’ political power to be given to urban areas. This flew directly in the face of the founders’ intent when it established the federal Senate with two votes per state in order to preserve some power in the small states. In essence, the Warren Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution was unconstitutional.

In defense of the Warren decision, many states had abused their senate districting, which prompted the Warren decision. However, Warren wanted to fix the problem in the worst possible way and that is exactly how he did it, in the worst possible way. But the best way for Democrats.

Warren based the decision on the 14^th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.” Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a dissent that said the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights.

As a result, minority parties in many states, such as NY State, do not have an effective vote in state matters, which negates our “equal protection of the laws.” 

Every issue must be viewed in context; statements can mean very different things when taken out of context. The US Constitution set up the rules and overall framework for how the federal government would operate, but it also had another purpose; to use those rules to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Every part of the Constitution should be interpreted within the context of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. “One man one vote” goes against that principle.

The Constitution contains many examples that contradict “one man one vote:

• The power to make laws is vested in our elected representatives in the House and Senate, not in a vote by the majority of the people (Article I Section 1).

• Each state has two Senators, no matter what the population (Article 1 Section 3 and Amendment XVII).

• Power is divided and the Executive department has the power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I) but not to make laws (Article I Section 1).

• The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I). Almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes (state laws).

• In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)

• Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”. The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2). Six states are below the average representation.

• Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.

Why is it important to gun owners that our Constitution is not in any way based on one man one vote? Currently, New York has a bicameral (two house) legislature where both houses are based on an equal percentage of the population. What if, instead of “one man one vote”, the NY State Senate was apportioned by each county having one Senator, no matter what the population was of the county? Rural counties would then have a voice that is currently denied them because of NY City’s overwhelming population. In NY State, the principle of “one man one vote” effectively means that people in rural counties have no vote. Rural counties are subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Stare decisis is a legal principle where courts rarely go against principles established in previous rulings. Unless of course you are a liberal court, then the only principle that matters is your current political position. Liberals respect stare decisis only when it works in their favor. The Warren Court frequently ignored Stare Decisis. Unfortunately, Stare Decisis also protects bad rulings as we have seen with “one man one vote”.

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article 2 Section 2); they are not elected. (Another example that goes against “one man one vote”.) 2^nd Amendment defenders face an extremely grave time with the Senate and Presidency both in gun grabbers’ hands; they have run rampant in approving far left judges who will make political rulings, such as the Warren Court made, instead of judgments based on the Constitution. Elections have consequences and we need to ensure that future Presidents and Senates only appoint conservative judges who believe in the rule of law.

Perhaps, someday, we will have judges who recognize that “one man one vote” was another constitutional aberration of the Warren Court and needs to be overturned. That would overcome the tyranny of the majority that is now the rule of law in NY State and give gun owners and Upstate NY a voice in their government that is currently denied to them.

Another Congressional Redistricting  by Tom Reynolds

The Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) was created by a NY constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters in 2014.  The IRC is composed of ten members who are appointed in various ways.  It was supposed to do the redistricting for Congress and the NY Senate and the NY Assembly after the 2020 census was completed. 

The IRC was pushed by the Democrat Party because, at that time, the NY Senate was in Republican hands and this was a way to change that.  But then, the Democrats unexpectedly won control of the NY Senate and they didn’t like the IRC idea, any more.  The Democrats wanted to return to the old way where the Senate majority decided on the districts – since they were now in the majority.

The redistricting fight after the 2020 census reflected the Democrats desire to neuter the commission and was so bad that it led to a court stepping in and doing the final redistricting.

Semifinal?  That was not the end of it.

Democrats viewed the new congressional districts as too fair to Republicans, who made gains in the 2022 elections, even though Democrats still held the vast majority of NY seats in Congress.  Democrats managed to get the process reopened.

Last week, by a vote of 9-1, the IRC approved a new congressional map, to replace the too-fair-to Republicans-map.  It could help NY Democrats make slight gains in this year’s U.S. House elections, but it falls well short of the electoral windfall for the Democrats that they were expecting.

The new map now moves for final action to the Democrat-controlled NY State legislature, where its fate is unclear. Democrats in the state legislature have final say over the map, holding the power to reject the commission’s plan and take over the line-drawing themselves. But that would risk another round of legal fights, with Republicans likely to challenge any map they view as an overly aggressive gerrymander. Several Democrats remained noncommittal.  The last thing the Democrats want is another judge drawing the final districts – unless they can pick the judge.

The IRC’s map leaves largely undisturbed much of the present districts, with only a few major exceptions.

According to the NY Times, with tears of regret in its eyes, “The commission’s map includes modest tweaks that would help Democrats flip one seat in Syracuse, and would most likely make a pair of vulnerable incumbents — one Democrat and one Republican — safer in the Hudson Valley.”

The Times continued, “But it does not touch lines on Long Island or in Westchester County, both major suburban battlegrounds where Democratic campaigns were looking for a leg up, or on Staten Island, where the party has long coveted a right-leaning seat. Even subtle shifts in those areas could have made a handful of Republican-held seats virtually unwinnable for incumbents in November.”

Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the NY State Senate majority leader, said “We are committed to concluding it in a manner that upholds fairness and democracy.”  (Who said Democrats don’t have a sense of humor?)

With the Special Election victory of Democrat Suozzi, the House has a slim Republican majority of 6 (219-213).  There are three special elections scheduled for this Spring to fill out the three open seats and two are in heavily favored Republican districts and one is in a heavily favored Democrat district.  If all goes as projected, when the dust settles, Republicans will hold a seven-vote majority. 

At least until the November elections.

The redistricting is especially important to Democrats as the major issues with voters (inflation, crime, immigration) would all seem to be negatives for them.  Getting more favorable districts may be their main election strategy.

And of course, to Second Amendment defenders, the Democrat party has made itself into the enemy of our gun rights, so this should be of great interest to 2A defenders.

Defying SCOTUS  by Tom Reynolds Last Wednesday, February 7th, SCOPE sent an email titled Chevron Dying. It raised an important question about courts, legislatures and executives that defy United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rulings and get away with it. Specifically, we asked: When judges, legislators and executives openly defy the Constitution, that also opens the door to abuse and some action needs to be taken.  Without threat of punishment, there is little downside to ignoring SCOTUS and the Constitution. We have a problem that needs to be addressed. With all the legal brainpower in Washington, there must be some possible solution? Of course, there has to be the will to solve the problem.  Yesterday, Ammoland contained an article titled, 'Is the U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over Lower Courts', which is a reprint from “Arbalist Quarrel.” The article raised the same issue that SCOPE did a week earlier about lower courts openly defying SCOTUS. However, this article went beyond SCOPE in that it gave multiple examples of states defying SCOTUS. And it raised the same unanswered question: what can we do about it? It’s not only a NY problem but it’s a bigger problem than you might have imagined. It is worth reading to see the volume and types of cases where SCOTUS is openly defied. Is The U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over The Lower Courts (ammoland.com)

See this 7 minute 40 second video which lays out the situation in NY very well:

A New More Sinister Way For NY To Disarm It's Citizens

Comments made on this video:

-Former NYer here. I waited 12 weeks for my pistol permit. And that was 20+ years ago. 

-They’ve normalized tyranny in that state. 

-It’s been generational programming. 

-Life long residents think the suppression of their rights is normal and acceptable.

Allowing Credit Card Companies to Track Gun Purchases  by John R. Elwood

In 2022, the International Organization of Standards (ISO) announced it would create a Merchant Category Code (MCC) for gun and ammunition purchases for credit card companies to use.  Who is the ISO, and what is an MCC? 

The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental (NGO), international organization.  It applauds itself by saying it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.  It began in 1946  and, today, it has a membership of 170 national standard bodies.  The ISO is an NGO that has an accredited status with the United Nations’ (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs and is headquartered out of Geneva, Switzerland.  The United States has access to the ISO through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

A Merchant Category Code (MCC) is a four-digit code that credit card that companies use to identify the type of business that is processing a financial transaction – such as hardware stores, department stores or gasoline stations.  The code serves several purposes including whether a business needs to report a particular transaction to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and calculating consumer cash back rewards. 

Prior to this change, guns and ammunition stores were categorized as sporting goods or miscellaneous general merchandise stores. 

Who is leading this effort?

The usual suspects in gun control efforts, Democrat Senators Menendez and Warren, led an effort urging the United States Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide guidance to financial institutions for the full implementation of these guns and ammunition codes.  Senator Elizabeth Warren stated, “We need implementation across the country if we’re going to do everything, we can to prevent gun violence.   The sooner credit card companies and banks begin using the new merchant code for gun retailers and tracking suspicious gun purchases, the more mass shootings we will have a shot at preventing before they occur”.  (A statement based on no factual studies.)  The organization Guns Down America supported this effort, calling on companies to make the gun store code available in every state where it is not banned. 

Senators Menendez and Warren wrote to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland stating, “We believe the new MCC code has the potential to help reduce gun violence and save lives.”  The Senators highlighted in most mass shootings between 2007 and 2018, credit cards or debit cards were used to acquire the guns and ammunition used in the attack.

(Most cars in auto wrecks were probably financed with car loans so is the answer to auto crashes a new MCC category for auto loans?) 

A resistance formed.  Later in 2023, inspired by an uproar from Second Amendment Constituents, Republicans in the United State Senate pushed back.  Several states also launched a legislative effort that shut down the effort to track purchases of firearms and ammunition.  At least seven Republican-controlled state legislatures have banned MCCs for gun and ammunition purchases, while nine other legislatures are considering similar legislation.  States that have already banned MCCs include Wisconsin, West Virginia, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Florida.  Under the “Florida Arms and Ammo Act”, credit cards companies can be fined up to $10,000 if they track gun and ammunition sales. 

Great, now we can rest?  Not so fast!

The MCC for gun and ammunition purchase is back!

Major credit card companies (Mastercard, Visa, American Express) are moving forward to make an MCC available for firearm and ammunition retailers in order to comply with a new California law that will allow banks to potentially track suspicious gun purchases and report them to law enforcement by May 2025.  Gun control activists hope the code can be used as a tool to help identify suspect purchases and stop gun crime including mass shootings.

What is the big deal? 

Bankers have the expertise to identify potential criminals who will misuse firearms? 

What’s a suspicious purchase…more than one box of ammo?

Some people don’t have to use a credit card or debit card to purchase firearms or ammunition, they can use cash or pay with a check.  But, what if the federal government goes to an all-digital currency like a digital dollar, and cash is not available?   If that were to happen, and that is not out of the realm of possibilities because Democrats in the U.S Government are currently looking to move to a digital dollar.  If implemented, EVERY purchase you make, including gun and ammunition purchases, will be monitored by the U.S. Government. 

(Not doing enough for climate change by buying what the government considers too much meat?  The digital dollar will tell on you, too!)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) vehemently denounces the use of a firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) as a clear infringement of the sacred Second Amendment rights of every American.  An NRA representative stated, “Orchestrated by left-wing institutions and anti-gun lobbyists, this underhanded maneuver aims to bypass federal laws, effectively implementing a de facto national firearms registry and trampling the Constitution.  Amid an environment where lawful gun sales already undergo rigorous scrutiny, this scheme represents an unprecedented assault on the privacy of law-abiding gun owners”.  

A gun expert stated, “If governments or credit card companies start to require certain purchase patterns at gun stores be reported to police, that could put a lot of innocent people under suspicion depending on how broad the criteria are”.

We have been warned!  California’s move to institute a gun and ammunition MCC is a warning to New York State gun owners.  Now, what are we going to do about it? 

The New York State organization, Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) OPPOSES this attempt by the left-wing Democrat Party to restrict the privacy of gun owners when they purchase a gun or buy ammunition.  We do so because: 

The NRA-ILA summarizes it nicely: “Several provisions in federal law, but most notably a key part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, prohibit the federal government from centralizing most firearm records into a registry. The new MCC could provide a way for the government to outsource the creation of a registry that the government itself is prohibited from creating. If banks and payment processors share their records with the government, that would be a major step towards the registration of all gun owners in America.”

Gun owners know what comes after national registry…CONFISCATION. 

Just as important, it is not the responsibility of an INTERNATIONAL non-governmental (administrative bureaucracy) like the ISO to pass laws on citizens of the United States.  Public-private partnerships DO NOT make legislation, the United States Congress makes our laws!

This is a great example of why It is important to remind each and every American that every AMERICAN must continue to be involved in the legislative process and to ensure that your representatives are fighting to protect your Constitutional rights”. 

Let’s not assume someone else will fight this battle.  Let’s get involved now! 

The hour is late in the fight to protect the United States Constitution.

Special Election This Coming Tuesday

There are currently 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans a seven-member advantage.  Normally, if only four Republicans switch their vote on any issues, the Democrats could enact any law.  But Republican Steve Scalise is home being treated for cancer and unavailable to vote.

There are currently four openings which will be filled by Special Elections.

Ohio’s 6th Congressional District is currently open with a special election scheduled for June 11th.  The district is rated as solid Republican.

California’s 20th Congressional District is currently open with a special election scheduled for May 19th.  The district is rated as solid Republican.

New York’s 26th Congressional District is currently open.  Governor Hochul must make a decision on a date for a special election by February 12th.  The district is rated as solid Democrat.

                        _________________________________________
The Constitutional Right you save may be your own.

This coming Tuesday, February 13th, a special election will be held in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.  The district primarily represents part of the northern shore of Long Island.  Tom Suozzi (D) is running against Mazi Melisa Pilip (R).  The election is rated a tossup.

Given the Republicans’ small majority and with Republicans and Democrats sharply divided on gun control – as well as many other issues – this election is important to all Americans and of special interest to all SCOPE members.

Tom Suozzi is running on the Democrat ticket.  He said, “I’m proud of my F-rating from the NRA. We see these violent acts with guns happening much too often.”

The Brady Campaign and Giffords endorsed Suozzi and Moms Demand Action named him a ‘Candidate of Distinction’.  Brady, Giffords and Moms are all rabidly anti-2A organizations so it’s fair to say that Suozzi is not 2A friendly. 

SCOPE rate Suozzi as an “F”.

Mazi Melesa Pilip is running on the Republican ticket.  Being a political newcomer, there isn’t much available about her position on 2A.  One statement was that, on gun control, Pilip supports pro-gun interpretations of the Second Amendment, but makes clear the need for responsible regulations.

Suozzi’s campaign, in an appeal to Democrats, sees it as a negative when they say this about her, “Pilip is also running on the Conservative Party platform that opposes common sense gun reform, even red flag laws.”

Pilip spoke about gun policy in an interview with Spectrum News.  When asked about preventing school shootings, she said there are "already policies in place that we have to make sure that we coordinate between the federal and state government."

So, we have one rabidly anti-2A candidate (Suozzi) running against one who is at least mildly pro 2A (Pilip).

SCOPE rates Pilip as “B+”

This election is important to all of us because, when voting for any legislator, you are really voting for two people; the legislator and the head of the legislator’s party.  The latter might become the Speaker / Majority Leader due to the election and have enormous power over that legislative body.  A vote for Suozzi is a vote for a Democrat Speaker and a vote for Pilip is a vote for a Republican Speaker.  And you know which party’s leadership Is anti-2A.

If you live in the 3rd Congressional District, be sure to vote on Tuesday.

A Few More Lawsuits  by Tom Reynolds

Gun control addicts realize they can’t get the 2^nd Amendment repealed so their approach is that Americans may be able to keep and bear arms but there will be no place where they can do that.  This flies in the face of the Bruen decision but SCOTUS decisions never stop the Left; those decisions just invigorate the Left to try new approaches. 

Ammoland reports on this case.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, challenging the state’s blanket ban on out-of-state residents being able to obtain a concealed carry permit or to have New York honor out-of-state permits.

Under current New York law, only New York residents may apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, and the state does not grant any form of reciprocity for individuals who hold a similar permit from another state.

While those who hold out-of-state driver’s licenses may drive in New York, exercising one’s constitutional right to bear arms in New York State is wholly forbidden to Americans who are not NY State residents. New York is the only known state where nonresidents are not allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  (And residents keeping and bearing arms isn’t too popular with the NY State government, either.)

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The State of New York and its cadre of anti-gun politicians have done everything in their power to weaken and outright ban the Second Amendment within their borders. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms extends to the public square, and this right is for all Americans, not just those who are residents of individual states.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF, added:

“This is the only example nationwide that we can find where an out-of-state resident is completely barred from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and there’s no doubt the anti-gun legislature in Albany purposely designed it this way. We’ve warned these politicians before and we’ll do it again, fall in line on the Second Amendment, or we will make you.”

Note: while this lawsuit applies to residents of other states, it is an important step towards forcing NY State to comply with the spirit and the letter of the Bruen decision. 

Bearing Arms reports on this case

The Fry v. Nigrelli lawsuit challenges several aspects of New York’s carry laws including the post-Bruen ban on lawful carry on public transit.  Gun owners from Westchester and Orange counties sued New York City in 2021 because their state-issued concealed carry handgun licenses are invalid in New York City.  The case was expanded after the Concealed Cary Improvement Act was passed in 2022.

A lower court denied the request for a preliminary injunction against firearm bans on public transportation such as the MTA, subway, and train cars and in Times Square.  A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, recently heard the latest appeal for an injunction.

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which took effect in September 2022, bans guns from designated “sensitive places” such as schools, playgrounds and Times Square.  The gun owners claim the regulations are “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of firearm regulation.”

Fry’s attorney says that both the state of New York and New York City officials have argued that no one’s going to get arrested and charged with carrying in New York City, so long as they have a valid permit issued in another New York county. But the attorney has a client who’s facing felony charges; a 23-year-old who was pulled over behind the wheel in the Big Apple and charged with three felonies for carrying concealed even though he has a valid New York State carry permit.

As might be expected, the Leftist 2^nd Circuit did not seem friendly to the complaint.  The question is whether ‘Frey’ will try to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Note: This case applies to non-residents, too; non-residents of New York City.  Since the NYC government doesn’t want its own citizens to have guns, it should not be a surprise that they hate  the idea of non city residents having guns. 

Ammoland reports on this case.

In Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, N.Y.

The 29-page decision enjoins the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys “from, taking any action to enforce, or otherwise require any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in the ‘Tenant’s Obligations’” in the standard lease agreement pending final resolution of the case.

“This is not the first time SAF has litigated a public housing case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “which have all been about the same thing, a Second Amendment violation. We have won cases in Illinois and Tennessee, and by now, it would seem that public housing authorities should have gotten the message that constitutional rights do not end at the front door. We will continue pursuing such cases as they come to our attention because people do not give up their rights simply because they live in subsidized housing.”

“No public housing authority should be allowed to simply block tenants from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition, not a buffet from which a bureaucracy should be able to pick and choose which rights they find acceptable. We’re delighted with Judge Suddaby’s decision, which is a victory for constitutional rights everywhere.”

Note: These cases put NY State on the defensive, for a change, something Hochul, James and company are not accustomed to.

Chevron Dying?  by Tom Reynolds

Under the 1984 SCOTUS opinion in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, if a law is ambiguous, the court must accept the executive agency's interpretation of the law if the executive branch agency's interpretation of the law is reasonable or permissible.  No room for judicial scrutiny.

The Chevron decision has seriously distorted how the political branches operate; under Chevron, Executive Branch agencies become lawmakers, which is contrary to that pesky scrap of paper, the United States Constitution, which demands that only Congress can legislate.

Chevron is the reason that the ATF has been able to arbitrarily pass firearm regulations. 

That may be changing, on paper at least. 

The cases of two Herring fishing companies are before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce.  Why are two fishing cases of interest to 2nd Amendment defenders? 

The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act, allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require herring boats to carry federal monitors to enforce of NMFS’ regulations.  NMFS decided that, without any express statutory authorization, the herring boats must also pay the salaries of these monitors, estimated by the NMFS to be $710 per day.  NMFS took the usual bureaucratic attitude; what are you going to do about it?  Sue us? 

To NMFS surprise, Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless sued.

There is reason for us to be hopeful.  SCOTUS has ruled positively against the chevron Doctrine in a similar case.

West Virginia vs the EPA was about the EPA legislating through regulation, under the Chevron Doctrine; the EPA was mandating the shutdown of coal fire power plants.  The question was not whether shutting down coal plants was good or bad but whether the EPA had the power and right to move forward with regulatory mandates on such “a major question” without express congressional approval.

SCOTUS answer was a resounding no to the EPA.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, was a resoundingly strict constitutionalist: “By effectively requiring a broad consensus to pass legislation, the Constitution sought to ensure that any new laws would enjoy wide social acceptance, profit from input by an array of different perspectives during their consideration, and thanks to all this prove(d) stable over time…Permitting Congress to divest its legislative power to the Executive Branch would dash (this) whole scheme…agencies could churn out new laws more or less at whim.”

2A defenders are hopeful these cases will mortally wound the Chevron doctrine and curtail agencies such as the ATF in its anti-2A methods.  The Chevron Doctrine must be put to death.

However, that won’t necessarily solve the problem, in real life, as there is a related problem.  If the federal government loses the “Herring” cases, will they have any impact, other than as paper victories?

Article VI of the Constitution states: “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…”  But what happens to judges (and legislators and governors) who ignore the Constitution?

Answer, in most cases: nothing.

In Caetano v Massachusetts, every level of Massachusetts’ state courts ignored an existing SCOTUS ruling that clearly stated that guns did not have to be in existence when the 2nd Amendment was passed in order to be protected by 2A.  Massachusetts judges openly defied SCOTUS and based their opinions on a type of gun not being in existence in 1790. 

What was the judges’ punishment in Democrat controlled Massachusetts for ignoring the Constitution?  Nothing! 

In NY State, the legislative and executive branches ignored the SCOTUS rulings in NYSRPA v Bruen and passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) which openly contradicted much of Bruen.  As a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars (eventually millions) are being spent suing NY State. 

We expect SCOTUS will overturn much of CCIA.  If so, will there be any legal action against anyone who openly defied SCOTUS?  Not in Democrat controlled NY State.

In Biden v Nebraska, SCOTUS ruled that the Biden Administration does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.

In response, Biden has been forgiving loans and extending repayment periods.

Can we expect an impeachment?

People need to be held responsible for violating their oaths of office.

Granted, it is also dangerous path when the executive and judicial branches start taking legal action against judges because of court decisions.  This can be easily abused.  The Left has little regard for our Constitution and this would open up a new path for them to destroy it.  Which is is why there have been few impeachments of federal judges. 

When judges, legislators and executives openly defy the Constitution, that also opens the door to abuse and some action needs to be taken.  Without the threat of punishment, there is little downside to ignoring SCOTUS and the Constitution. 

We have a problem that needs to be addressed.  With all the legal brainpower in Washington, there must be some possible solution?  Of course, there has to be the will to solve the problem.

Oregon( e )  by Tom Reynolds

Oregon is the place where people go who are too radical for California.

Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of drugs.  Police can no longer arrest someone for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, oxycodone and other hard drugs under a ballot measure passed by a wide margin in November 2020. Instead, those found in possession face a $100 fine or a health assessment that could lead to addiction counseling. 

Note:  If they can’t pay what Is basically a speeding ticket, drug users had to undergo an assessment they don’t want to determine if they have an addiction they don’t want to break so they could undergo addiction counseling they don’t want.  What could go wrong?

But, supporters of the measure were ecstatic.  (Notice how similar their comments and predictions were to Democrat comments every time a new gun control law is passed.)

Decriminalizing hard drugs was hailed it as a revolutionary move for the United States. Supporters said that criminalizing drug possession had not worked.  

'Today, the first domino of our cruel and inhumane war on drugs has fallen, setting off what we expect to be a cascade of other efforts centering health over criminalization,' said Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique. 

Oregon’s 'Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund' was rolling in money thanks to ‘pot taxes’ on the rapidly growing legal marijuana industry.  However, some funds were also diverted from other programs and entities that had already received the funds.  The ballot measure capped the amount of pot tax revenue that schools, mental health alcoholism & drug services, the state police, and cities & counties received at $45 million annually, with the rest going to the 'Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund'.

'In the future, as Oregon's treatment programs reach full funding, the state should evaluate what other services would benefit from our continually growing marijuana tax revenues,' Oregon Education Association (OEA) President John Larson said in an email.

 Note: The OEA union represents about 44,000 educators. I wonder what other non-addiction services’ the teacher’s union has in mind to finance with the ‘pot tax’?

The initiative was also expected to help save money by reducing law enforcement costs stemming from arrests.  After decriminalization of hard drugs, about 3,700 fewer Oregonians per year were estimated to be convicted of felony or misdemeanor possession of controlled substances, according to estimates by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.  The measure was also predicted to lead to a 95 percent reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in convictions and arrests, the state commission said.

Oregon was to become Nirvana for the drugs formerly known as illegal.

Or maybe not.

Opioid deaths in Oregon, which were 280 before the de-criminalization of drugs, grew to 955 in 2022. The Portland Police Department’s Bureau of Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit saw a 75% increase in notifications of overdose deaths in 2023 over a year prior. According to the Oregon Health Authority, the state experienced more opioid overdose visits to emergency departments and urgent care centers last year compared to previous years.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek (Democrat of course) said in a statement, (we) “are grappling with how to respond” to the opioid / fentanyl crisis.

Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson (Democrat) and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (a ‘moderate Democrat by Oregon standards) each declared a 90-day state of emergency to commit available resources into a unified response to the fentanyl crisis. (Taking money away from some of those ‘revolutionary’ methods hailed two years ago?)

Mayor Wheeler said in a statement: “This is exactly the type of coordinated action needed to make a direct impact and a lasting difference."  (This ‘coordinated effort’ sounds a lot like what was promised two years ago about another approach.)

Remember when Portland was synonymous with ‘Defund the police?”  Portland Police Bureau has entered into a partnership with the Oregon State Police to jointly patrol downtown streets for fentanyl sales.

At the state level, Democrat lawmakers in Oregon unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law.  The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor. 

2d Amendment supporters in NY State are accustomed to the same type of hype that accompanied the 2020 decriminalization of drugs and we are also used to the same type of results.  After all, the ‘gun control’ laws take guns away from law abiding citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched; something the gun control proponents do not get!

And in a similar vein, no bail laws and soft on crime prosecutors like Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg promised new approaches to crime.  New -yes.  Effective-no.

The lesson for all of us is that the Left promises big things when they make big changes to established laws and traditions.  Maybe the old ways aren’t so bad?  You know, things like “keep and bearing arms” to protect ourselves from criminals and drug addicts who commit crimes.  (I differentiate between criminals and drug addicts since, in Oregon, they are not the same.)   

Some closing thoughts:

We shouldn’t put all the blame on the decriminalization.  After all, Joe Biden opened our southern border to smuggling-at-will and that has certainly contributed to the fentanyl crisis.

Several years before Oregon decriminalized drugs, it also made marijuana legal.  NY State has also made marijuana legal.  Can we expect the far left, which has utterly failed in their efforts in NY State, to follow Oregon’s lead in spite of Oregon’s failure?

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert introduced a bill (as yet unnumbered) “To…treat illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.”  This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fentanyl is a WMD Act’’.”  (Maybe Boebert isn’t as crazy as the leftist media tries to portray?)

To whom it may Concern; Every member of Scope - if they are not already doing it - needs to start writing and phoning their State and Local Representatives.  There is power in numbers and until our elected officials receive hundreds and thousands of messages they will not budge.  I myself write to Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Cooney, Representative Joe Morelle, Assemblyman Josh Jensen and Governor Kathy Hochul on a weekly, sometimes daily routine, and President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris when I’m really upset.  Out of these people the only individual that I believes cares to buck the system is Josh Jensen.  I would vote against the rest of them. We have illegals requiring that our school children go back to remote learning because the illegal migrant camps are overcrowded and the space in our schools is needed to house the illegals during storms.  When these illegals will be required to attend school, be prepared to watch our school budget and taxes go sky high with no input from us by the way. We have more money in our state budgets for the illegal aliens that we do for our legal residents, many who live in poverty. State Senator Cooney was pretty proud of the fact that the Monroe County area would receive $50 Million from Governor Hochul for impoverished families. This same Governor is putting 2.4 billion in our state budget for the illegals, something Senator Cooney forgot to mention. We have Governors, Attorney Generals and other officials asking our President for relief supporting the illegal population entering our country with no response. We have a Vice President telling Katie Couric on National Television that our leaders need to do something while, apparently, not realizing that she is a leader (I Think). This week on National TV, we watched as Illegal Aliens beat up a NYC policeman.  Initially four were arrested and released without bail.  As of today Thursday, seven of the 12 suspects have now been arrested with police still looking for the rest. Governor Hochul thinks the event should be looked at to determine if the illegals should be deported. Do you believe she needs to think about it?  Why were the arrested released without bail?  I can go on and on but nothing is going to change until everyone that is unhappy starts contacting their elected officials and telling them they’ve had enough. It’s very important that we keep our members informed, as you have done nicely, but it’s just as important that, after we read your messages, we also do our part and follow up and act upon your message with a phone call, email, Facebook any kind of message that confronts our elected officials with the truth which is “We don’t like what you are doing and we want you to change it”.  We need to do this because while all of this daily commotion is going on with the illegals, these same politicians that ignore the laws of our country and make a farce of their Oath of Office are sneaking in new gun bills. With Respect Ron B.

NYS Assembly NYS Senate NYS Congressional Delegation