First Week in Congress  by Tom Reynolds

At the Steuben County SCOPE Bar-B-Que on the 18^th, Congressman of less-than-a-week Joe Sempolinski was there.  After some discussion, it became obvious that the experiences of a new congressman’s first week were something most of us have never heard and he agreed to share some of it with SCOPE.

It is the honor of a lifetime to be sworn into the United States House of Representatives and I was blessed with that honor on September 13, 2022. Words cannot express what it meant for me to be sworn in as my wife Angie, my daughters Maddie and JoJo, my parents, and my wife's parents looked on. It is a feeling I will never forget.

To think of the decisions and the history that has been made in that chamber is truly awe-inspiring.  As I have said before, whether it's four minutes or four months, it is a privilege to serve in the United States Congress to represent the good people of NY's 23rd Congressional District.

As I was sworn in, I gave my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which is a commitment I do not take lightly. That is why I commend you at S.C.O.P.E for all that you do in that exact mission.

Since being sworn in, our team has hit the ground running here in Washington and, most importantly, back home in the 23rd District. Our offices are staffed and busy helping constituents which was always my first objective. In Washington, I have been busy with votes and my committee assignments on the Education and Labor Committee as well as the Budget Committee, always making sure that I am a voice for our district by putting their best interest first.

I managed Republican speakers on the House floor for two bills. It is very rare that a congressman, with less than one week in office, manages one bill, let alone two. 

I've also gotten to know the NY delegation and have had wonderful conversations and discussions with them. Everyone has been very gracious and kind, especially my fellow upstate Republicans.

I was surprised to learn, early on, how frequently members vote remotely in committee hearings. When the Republicans take the House back in November, they will be doing away with proxy voting. It's unsettling that major decisions are being made by a representative eating a sandwich on a computer screen. It is time that our Representatives do their jobs and return to Washington in person.

It has also become clear that the Democrats have a very different, unconstitutional vision for this country. It is more important than ever that the direction of this country changes and we reject the Biden/Pelosi agenda. I will never stop defending our rights.

Overall, my first week has been a busy and thrilling experience. I thank everyone in the 23rd who put their faith and trust in me. I will not let you down. I am excited about what we have accomplished so far and look forward to the work ahead, fighting day in and day out for my friends, family, and neighbors.

Before he was Congressman Sempolinski, Joe spoke at the last two SCOPE Member’s Meetings.  He is a SCOPE member.

GOA-NY #2

SCOPE previously wrote that on August 31^st, the GOA-NY lawsuit against NY’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was dismissed by the judge because the plaintiff lacked standing.  Presumably, this was because the plaintiff had not yet violated the law.  However, the judge opinioned that large portions of CCIA were unconstitutional and it was only the defendant’s lack of standing that prevented the judge from ruling major portions of CCIA as unconstitutional.

They’re back!

GOA-NY has filed a new lawsuit that will hopefully cure the lack of standing.  Several plaintiffs declare under oath their intention to violate the CCIA. Below are some of the reasons the plaintiffs should now have standing.  Each plaintiff states several other places they intend to concealed carry in violation of CCIA – but you will get the picture.

In their haste, Kathy Hochul and her cohorts never considered these issues – but they should have since they are everyday issues of everyday people of NY State.  But then again, CCIA was never about everyday issues that New Yorkers face, it was about Hochul making political points with her supporters by spitting on the Supreme Court and the United States Constitution.

Each plaintiff faces a credible threat of prosecution because his specific intentions are now public through this filing and the State Police have made it clear that they intend to enforce the CCIA’s provisions on a “zero tolerance” basis, stating “If you violate this law, you will be arrested.”

The first plaintiff routinely goes on hiking and camping trips throughout NY State and intends to carry his firearm on his upcoming trip to a State Park, where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

The plaintiff intends to carry his firearm within a restaurant that serves alcohol, where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

The plaintiff intends to carry his firearm while attending pro-gun and other rallies where people assemble to exercise constitutional rights and where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

A second plaintiff states that he routinely goes to the movies and states he intends to concealed carry in violation of CCIA.

Plaintiff is a grandfather to 5 grandchildren and states it is his duty to protect his family. He intends to take his grandchildren to a State Park and intends to concealed carry, which is not allowed under CCIA.

CCIA criminalizes his taking of a firearm to the airport, even unloaded, locked, and properly declared in checked baggage, in compliance with federal regulations.  Plaintiff states he will be flying to Tennessee, which allows him to carry there.  He intends to check his firearm in his luggage in accordance with TSA regulations, which requires declaring the firearm, in which case he would be confessing to being in illegal possession of a firearm under the CCIA.

Plaintiff plans to concealed carry at a Gun Show, in violation of CCIA, in a Community Center described as a conference center, banquet hall & wedding venue.  CCIA bans firearms at “conference centers” and “banquet halls,” and the Community Center may not opt out of this ban and expressly allow firearms.  Plaintiff states that “a gun show is, almost by definition, a ‘gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble’ ... and, thus, the CCIA appears to entirely ban gun shows.”

 A third plaintiff is a pastor who states that the church maintains a “church security team, consisting of trusted church members who are licensed carry permit holders, and are designated to carry their firearms to provide security and protection to the congregation during worship services.” Under the CCIA, neither the pastor nor his security team may possess firearms on church property. The pastor intends to continue to possess and carry his firearm while on church property, in violation of the CCIA.

The pastor lives in a parsonage that is physically part of the same building as the Church. This parsonage is not only used as his family’s residence, but is also used for church business.  Under the CCIA, the pastor’s home is now a “sensitive location” where he is prohibited from possessing a firearm, including a handgun for self-defense. In order to fully comply with the CCIA, the pastor would have to turn all his firearms over to the government, and he refuses to do so.

The pastor’s church has an addiction recovery ministry, and the pastor travels to homes of people addicted to drugs. CCIA makes it impossible for the Pastor to legally carry while ministering, as it declares all private property a “restricted location” and requires him to get express consent, sometimes of an addict, before entering his or her home while carrying a firearm. But for the CCIA, he would continue carrying his firearm while providing this ministry as he has in the past.

The pastor believes that the CCIA places off limits “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to ... assemble.”  This would seem to cover a church service. To the extent that this section covers church activities, the Pastor does not intend to comply.”

The Church maintains a church bus and a church van, used to take church members, youth, and members of the public with them when they travel. The CCIA appears to ban firearm possession in their “bus” and the pastor Mann does not intend to comply

Because the pastor’s church plays music before, during, and after worship services, the CCIA separately bans firearms at a “performance venue” or “concert” and additionally a “banquet hall,” as they often break bread together. The CCIA does not appear to include an exemption even for the Lord’s Supper.

A fourth plaintiff is a volunteer firefighter. This usually means that he is going about his normal daily routines when he receives a call to respond and he has no opportunity to go home to disarm and stow his firearm. There are times that, while armed, he has responded to an emergency call at locations that the CCIA now declares to be “sensitive locations” including private property now deemed a “restricted location”.

The Catskills Park surrounds the fourth plaintiff’s town and he has often responded to calls for assistance in that park. There is no exception for him to carry there or even drive to there with a firearm during an emergency call, and he would be liable for a felony if he, as a first responder, responded to an emergency situation while armed.

The plaintiff responds to house and structure fires, and renders aid. Plaintiff states it would be “absurd” to have to ask a family to provide him with their ‘express consent’ to carry his firearm prior to entering their home to put out a fire or to provide lifesaving medical care.

Plaintiff intends to continue carrying his firearm as a firefighter, which will put him in violation of the CCIA as he responds to calls.

Plaintiff also runs a small hotel/bed and breakfast.  His now “restricted location” would have to post signage to allow guests to carry, because “person-by-person ‘express consent’” is impractical to give to each visitor. CCIA requires him to engage in compelled speech to continue to provide services to those who bring their firearms to his hotel.  If he refuses to be compelled to speak, he will lose the business of gun owners who lawfully travel with their firearms.  If he posts a sign allowing concealed carry, he will lose business from customers that do not share that view.   The CCIA politicizes his business against his will and, no matter which option he chooses, he will lose business.”

Plaintiff cannot leave with a firearm without entering the Catskills Park surrounding his town, even if the firearm is unloaded, locked and stored in a trunk because there is no exception for travel in the park.

A fifth plaintiff has accounts on some “social media” platforms, of which his Facebook profile is set to “friends only.” He would have to add a sheriff or investigator or perhaps even his licensing official as a “friend” so that they could view his Facebook posts. He refuses to comply with this requirement, or to divulge any social media accounts to the state.  Plaintiff states that, if he were “forced to produce all his speech,” he would “self-censor for fear of retribution”, unwilling to express his true feelings, especially on contentious issues involving political speech.

Plaintiff objects to the in-person interview requirement, because it would violate his “Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and against self-incrimination.”

Plaintiff’s sheriff does not have an appointment available submit his application until October of 2023, more than 13 months from today, in violation of Bruen, which anticipates challenges to permitting regimes which require “lengthy wait times” to obtain a permit. The Sheriff’s current 13 months delay greatly exceeds the time the Sheriff has to process an application under NYS statute.  The Sheriff’s delay in accepting license applications also violates New York Penal Law 400(4-b), which requires that applications for licenses shall be accepted for processing by the licensing officer at the time of presentment and that, except upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay, in each case the licensing officer shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment.

Plaintiff will not complete sixteen hours of classroom instruction, plus two hours of live-fire training, as it is unnecessary and expensive.  Plaintiff objects to the requirement that he has to pay to learn about “suicide prevention,” as he is not suicidal and such subject matter has no bearing on his being a responsible gun owner.

A sixth plaintiff is a property owner and enjoys the right to determine who and under what circumstances, people visit his property. The CCIA infringes on this right, as it declares his home a restricted location.

The CCIA requires that he post “clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms ... is permitted” or otherwise provide his “express consent” to someone wanting to carry a firearm in his home or on his property. Plaintiff states that it is impossible to provide express consent to each and every visitor that stops by unless he is present on his front lawn 24 hours a day, as a delivery driver, or some other visitor may come to his home while he is unavailable.

Plaintiff states that the CCIA could prevent one of his neighbors from coming to his aid, at his home, unless he previously gave them “express consent” to carry a firearm on his property and that perhaps that person “would be forced to mill around in the dark, searching for ‘conspicuous signage’ authorizing him to help.”

Plaintiff is left with the option of posting “conspicuous signage.” But he cannot safely comply with that requirement because many New Yorkers are vehemently anti-gun and posting a sign in favor of gun rights can open him and his family to criticism, harassment and even possible hostile action (such as vandalism or a physical confrontation) by those who disagree with his political views.

Plaintiff will not post a sign that labels his home as being the likely location of a gun owner which would raise the risk that his home would be targeted by burglars, thieves, home invaders, or other violent criminals.

Elected officials are supposed to use good judgment and act soberly when passing laws.  When you vote in November, remember all the sober judgment used in passing CCIA.

• Following in Andrew’s Footsteps  by Tom Reynolds

  During the COVID-19 state of emergency, the NY Governor’s office and state agencies were given expanded discretion on state expenditures. In an effort to expedite the state’s purchasing and procurement processes during the public health crisis, the Legislature’s and Comptroller’s normal oversight authority was significantly restricted. It appears that Governor Hochul may have abused this relaxed oversight to reward political supporters with taxpayer’s money.

  Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay released the following, (emphasis added) which explains the situation:

  “Assembly Republican members of the Oversight, Analysis and Investigation Committee today called on their Democrat counterparts to conduct an immediate inquiry into Governor Hochul’s highly questionable contract with Digital Gadgets, a company owned by a major donor to the governor’s campaign which sold COVID-19 tests to the state.”
  

   “Through a no-bid contract, the Hochul Administration purchased COVID-19 tests from Digital Gadgets for an average of $12.25 per test, when other companies offered the same tests for as little as $5 each. The state of California purchased the same tests for only $6.75 apiece. The decision to pay Digital Gadgets’ higher price forced taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions more than necessary. Recent reports in the Albany Times Union show that the CEO of Digital Gadgets and his family have donated $300,000 to the Hochul campaign and hosted an in-person fundraiser for the governor just a month before the deal was reached.”
   
  “Assembly members Joseph Angelino (R,C,I-Norwich) and Jarett Gandolfo (R,C,I-Sayville) wrote to their Majority colleagues on the Committee, urging the panel to investigate the governor’s actions and waste of taxpayer dollars.”
  

  • The CEO of Digital Gadgets, Charles Tebele and his family members had no prior history of political donations.
  • A business associate of the Tebeles, Jack Cayre, and his family members gave $418,000 to the Governor’s re-election effort.
  • The Hochul campaign hired a member of the Tebele family on its fundraising staff.

  “It is the Legislature’s distinct role to keep the executive branch in check. It appears the Hochul administration took advantage of the relaxed procurement process permitted during the pandemic and awarded an overpriced contract for COVID-19 test kits to a large donor – Digital Gadgets. As Ranking Republican on the Committee on Oversight, Analysis and Investigation, we must not let this go without investigating the matter. These are the kind of scenarios that create distrust in government, and we owe it to the public to do our jobs,” said Angelino.”
  

  “’The Hochul Administration purchased COVID tests from a major campaign donor, paying nearly double the market rate – it looks suspiciously like a kickback scheme using taxpayer dollars,’ Gandolfo said. ‘The governor initially claimed that neither she nor her team knew that the company was supportive of her. However, we now know that the company’s founder held a fundraiser for her just one month before striking this shady deal. The excuses aren’t adding up, and, as Members of the Oversight Committee, we owe it to New Yorkers to uncover the truth.’”

  The letter from Angelino and Gandolfo had a couple other interesting facts not in Barclay’s release:

It will be interesting and surprising if anything comes from this prior to - or even after – the November election.  Unless Lee Zeldin wins the governorship.  Since the Democrats control the entire New York State government, their attitude is “it’s my ball and my rules”.

Another danger to Kathy Hochul would be if Mike Henry takes the Attorney General’s position away from Letitia James.  She has no trouble using the power of her office to harass Donald Trump but possible political abuse of power by a fellow Democrat is of no interest to her.

In a similar situation, the Democrats in Congress recently refused to investigate Hunter Biden and the many connections Joe Biden has to Hunter’s business.

Many of us are frustrated that members of the political elite enrich themselves at the taxpayer’s expense.  But we do have a method of striking back: it’s called VOTING!

Important Election Deadlines!

October 14, 2022:  Deadline to register to vote online, by mail, or in person at the local election office.   REGISTER TO VOTE NOW

October 24, 2022:  Deadline to Request an Absentee Ballot Online or By Mail.    REQUEST AN ABSENTEE BALLOT

October 29, 2022 - November 7, 2022:  Early Voting Period

FIND YOUR EARLY VOTING LOCATION 
FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE

November 7, 2022:  Last day to apply IN-PERSON for an absentee ballot

November 8, 2022:  ELECTION DAY  Deadline to Return Absentee Ballot.

An OP Ed by Tom Reynolds which appeared in last Sunday's Elmira Star Gazette and will appear in the future in the The Fingerlakes Times.

The first legal challenge to Governor Hochul’s new gun control laws was dismissed on technicalities, allowing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), to go into effect.

The CCIA bans all guns in approximately ninety percent of NY State, as "sensitive" places, and imposes strict new concealed carry permit restrictions similar to - or worse than - those that were recently struck down by the Supreme Court.  Judge Suddaby’s decision questioned the constitutionality of New York's CCIA - even calling it legally "doomed" - but ruled that he had no power to overturn the gun control measures because of technicalities in the lawsuit. 

The judge warned that numerous parts of the law were likely unconstitutional and could be challenged again in the future.  These all appeared to violate a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to carry a gun.

The law’s vague requirement of "good moral character" is fatally similar to the NY carry-permit application language that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional.

The insistence that a gun could only be used "in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others" ignores what guns are all about.  "The very act of using a firearm in self-defense against another person necessarily involves threatening, if not actually causing, danger to that other person," the Judge noted.  The law "literally does not permit one to use a firearm in self-defense" and is therefore "conditioned on a logical impossibility…and "doomed" to be struck down.

In regards to the disclosure of social media accounts, such a requirement could endanger a law-abiding citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In no situation should a citizen be required to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another. Therefore, someone should not risk losing First or Fifth Amendment protections in order to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.

The judge found fault with the state’s extensive list of gun-free zones and the part of the law that banned guns on private property without permission. The list of banned locations was so extensive as to be “almost limitless.”  And the presumptive ban on private property was not consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.

Nevertheless, after 24 pages of describing why he believed the law was unconstitutional, Suddaby concluded his decision by noting that he didn’t think he could do anything about it - right now.  (It appears that someone will have to be arrested for violating the CCIA in order to give Judge Suddaby the opportunity to move against the law.)

In responding to the decision, neither Hochul nor Attorney General Letitia James addressed the fact that the Judge labeled parts of the law as unconstitutional and it only a technicality saved it. 

This continues the left’s strategy of passing unconstitutional laws and daring anyone to sue them.  Hochul and James defend the laws on the taxpayer’s dime while plaintiffs must pay thousands of dollars to sue NY State.

Both Kathy Hochul and Letitia James are running for reelection in November.

Another Limitation of 2nd Amendment Rights  Henry Kramer 

Second Amendment Rights are now under assault from components of the private sector.  Visa, Mastercard, and American Express announced they will set up separate merchant transaction codes for gun purchases.  These codes will make it easier to track who has exercised their second amendment rights and purchased firearms. The new credit card company regulations can be viewed as a potential impairment of gun owner rights as many purchases are made with plastic, not checks or cash

Keep in mind that private sector companies are not bound, as the U.S. government is, to observe constitutional liberties.  However, government has been known to “push the envelope” to influence private companies into doing things that the government is forbidden from doing, as in the recent revelations about the FBI influencing Facebook about Hunter Biden’s “Computer from Hell”.

The Constitution is a series of limitations only on government.  The government acts on individuals and the private sector through statutory enactment.  So, the recent SCOTUS decision in Bruen protecting Second Amendment rights does not legally limit what credit card companies may or may not do in regards to merchant classifications.

By what right do credit card companies make gun purchases different from other purchases?  Attorneys-General in a number of states have recently warned private sector companies pursuing social and political objectives that the primary fiduciary duty of the members of their boards of directors is to the stockholders to bring in return on investment.  Being “woke” does not supersede their fiduciary duties.  Failure to do so may make directors personally liable to stockholders.

Gun owners and non-owners who support second amendment rights to protect all constitutional rights may wish to write to Visa, Mastercard, and American Express - and to the banks that issue them - that they may cancel these cards if the card issuers discriminate against second amendment rights.

Most importantly, in the upcoming November elections they may wish to vote against candidates who support violating the spirit of SCOTUS’s Bruen decision that bolstered second amendment rights.  The private sector should not be trying to impose limitations that the public sector is barred now from implementing.

Gov. Hochul Wrong on Defensive Use of Guns

Given how infrequently the news media covers defensive gun uses, it isn’t surprising that Gov. Hochul believes that defensive gun uses are rare. But survey estimates show on average that Americans use guns defensively about 2 million times a year. According to academic estimates, defensive gun uses – including instances when guns are simply shown to deter a crime – are four to five times more common than gun crimes.

Hochul also worries about permit holders themselves committing crime, but her fears are misplaced. New York doesn’t provide data on the rate at which permit holders have their permits revoked, but we do have that data for other states. In the 19 states with comprehensive data, the average revocation rate for any reason is one-tenth of 1%. Typically, permit revocations occur because someone moved, died, or forgot to bring a permit while carrying. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth the rate of police officers. 

The governor might also be surprised to learn that the general public disagrees with her. An early July survey by the Trafalgar Group showed a plurality of American general election voters believe that armed citizens are the most effective element in protecting you and your family in the case of a mass shooting. First on the list was “armed citizens” at 42%, followed by “local police” (25%) and “federal agents” (10%).

Police are essential to keeping the peace and bringing criminals to justice, but in most cases they can’t directly protect people. That’s why Gov. Hochul owes the residents of her state the chance to protect themselves.

Governor Hochul – “Commander General”, Secessionist?by Bob Sundius, S.C.O.P.E. Member

Governor Hochul has unilaterally decided she has ultimate authority, superior to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and by implication its co-equal branches of the Federal Government.  As well, she has elevated herself above all the governors of the other 49 sovereign states comprising the federation which is the United States of America.

The “Hochul Pistol Permit Restrictions ‘new Law’ (S.51001/A.41001) is titled: “An act to amend the penal law, the general business law, the executive law, the civil practice law and rules and the state finance law, in relation to licensing and other provisions relating to firearms”. The Governor’s, July 1^st, 2022 announcement claims it was: “… — drafted in close collaboration with the Legislature — is devised to align with the Supreme Court's recent decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.”

“… align with the Supreme Court's recent decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen”?  As the “blind man” said: “Let’s see.”

Beyond the legal challenges already filed and the respectful approaches (begrudgingly) taken by other states affected, Hochul’s positioning of the “new Law” is obviously self-serving, inconsistent with and contradicts the “rulings” in the Bruen Opinion, or as Randy Barnett highlights in a recent post:

Legislative acts that were not good-faith exercises of such powers were considered “pretended” legislation, and not truly a law. As John Marshall explained in McCulloch v. Maryland, “should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal … to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” (https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/a-minor-impact-on-gun-laws-but-a-potentially-momentous-shift-in-constitutional-method/)

That this “new Law” passed without due process under another “message of necessity” is a manifestation of Hochul’s June 23^rd, 2022 official statement: "In the wake of the Supreme Court's reckless and reprehensible decision on NYSRPA v. Bruen, … We are not powerless, and we will do everything in our power to protect New Yorkers."

THE GOVERNOR’S ACTION IS IN CONTEMPTUOUS DEFIANCE OF SCOTUS’ OPINION, AND A DIRECT REJECTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S STRUCTURE – SCOTUS IS “THE SUPREME COURT” AND ITS DECISION ARE BINDING.

As William Baude discusses ("The Judgment Power," 96 Georgetown Law Journal 1807 (2008).) “… at some point, a judgment does become final, and at that point it has a peculiar characteristic. It is legally binding, …”, and “… in the United States of America, the judicial power is a distinct, separate, independent, and co-ordinate branch of the government; expressly recognised as such … by the federal constitution, from which the courts of the United States derive all their powers. …”

Governor Hochul has with her “new Law” rejected more than the New York residents’ rights enumerated and protected by the Second, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments (among others) she has audaciously denied the “authority” and “power” of The Supreme Court of the United States and the finality of their “judgement” (i.e., until such time as SCOTUS, itself, modifies or reverses its Opinion, or the Constitution is amended).

Is this a first step by Governor Hochul leading the NYS Legislature, with the “blessings of the swamp”, to advance a “coup d’état”, or secede from the Union?

Consider asking your NYS Assemblyman, Senator and Governor about the above, and then demand that they repeal in its entirety the unlawful and unconstitutional “Hochul Pistol Permit Restrictions ‘new Law’” (S.51001/A.41001).

Round One  by Tom Reynolds

Wednesday, the first legal challenge to Governor Hochul’s strict new gun control laws was dismissed on technicalities, allowing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), to go into effect September 1st, as planned.

The CCIA bans all guns (not just handguns) in approximately ninety percent of New York State, as "sensitive" places, and imposes strict new concealed carry permit restrictions similar to - or worse than - those that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.  The federal judge’s 78-page decision questioned the constitutionality of New York's CCIA - even calling it legally "doomed" - and that it could be challenged again in the future.  But Chief U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that he had no power to overturn the gun control measures because of technicalities in the lawsuit

The lawsuit began when, in response to Hochul’s move, two Virginia-based national gun lobbies, (the Gun Owners Foundation and the Gun Owners of America) joined with a Schenectady County gun owner named Ivan Antonyuk and filed suit against the law and argued that the CCIA is an illegal end-run around the Supreme Court. 

As the law hadn’t gone into effect, Suddaby wrote that Antonyuk hadn’t been harmed (because he had not been subject to any prosecution). And the gun groups hadn’t shown they were actually harmed by the law, either, the judge added.  In addition, the defendant, State Police Superintendent Kevin Bruen, wasn’t actually the one in charge of carrying out many of the law’s provisions.  Based on those issues, a law was allowed to proceed that the judge labeled as likely unconstitutional.

The judge warned that numerous parts of the law were likely unconstitutional and could be challenged again in the future: the state’s “good moral character” requirement; new laws requiring disclosure of social-media accounts; and the creation of an extensive list of gun-free zones.  These all appeared to violate a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to carry a gun.

The vague requirement of "good moral character" is fatally similar to the New York carry-permit application language that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, Suddaby wrote.

And the insistence that a gun could only be used "in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others" ignores what guns are all about.  "The very act of using a firearm in self-defense against another person necessarily involves threatening, if not actually causing, danger to that other person," Suddaby noted.  The law "literally does not permit one to use a firearm in self-defense" and is therefore "conditioned on a logical impossibility," he said, and "doomed" to be struck down.

In regards to the disclosure of social media accounts, Suddaby said that such a requirement could endanger a law-abiding citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech. He also questioned whether such a disclosure could also violate someone’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In no situation should a citizen be required to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another, Suddaby wrote. Therefore, someone should not risk losing First or Fifth Amendment protections in order to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.

Lastly, the judge found fault with the state’s extensive list of gun-free zones and the part of the law that banned guns on private property without permission. The list of banned locations was so extensive as to be “almost limitless.”  And the presumptive ban on private property was not consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation, he ruled.

Nevertheless, after 24 pages of describing why he believed the law was unconstitutional, Suddaby concluded his decision by noting that he didn’t think he could do anything about it, right now.  (It appears that someone will have to be arrested for violating the CCIA in order to give Judge Suddaby the opportunity to move against the law.)

In defending her laws, Hochul was quoted by Fox News as saying, “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”  Oh really!  Let’s show that data to Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year-old concealed carrier who stopped a mass shooter in Indiana’s Greenwood Park Mall on July 17.  It seems she has not read the Center for Disease Control sponsored report that estimates that a gun is used 496,000 times a year to stop an intruder in a home.  (Obviously, not on Hochul’s reading list.)

In responding to the decision, neither Hochul nor Attorney General Letitia James addressed the fact that the Judge labeled parts of the law as unconstitutional and it was only a technicality that saved it.  Suddaby’s decision is subject to appeal.

This case is not the only one challenging Hochul’s gun control scheme.  On Wednesday, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a new lawsuit, arguing the CCIA legislation “replaces one unconstitutional, discretionary law with another unconstitutional, discretionary law.”

The NYSRPA lawsuit was filed the same day Hochul and fellow democrat New York City Mayor Eric Adams said New Yorkers who were approved for pistol permits by licensing authorities will face felony charges (and prison time) under the new law simply for entering a “sensitive” area designated as a gun-free zone with a handgun, rifle or other firearm.

It needs to be pointed out that both Kathy Hochul and Letitia James are running for reelection in November.

Kickback Kathy Punts  by Tom Reynolds

Volumes have been written about the hastily passed anti-2nd Amendment and anti-Constitution laws passed by NY State as an emergency “Necessity”.  Since the laws were written and passed under Democrats’ extreme emotional distress, they are flawed.  Logically, the laws should be repealed and the left could start over.  But emotions and not logic run deep in Hochul’s circles, so they are ignoring their own laws. 

One of the laws (New York Senate bill 51001) adds onerous, time consuming and expensive steps to pistol permit renewal.  On August 27th, (5 days before the law takes effect) Hochul’s NY State Police just came out with guidance that says:

“A pistol or revolver license issued by New York City or Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties expires and needs to be renewed every 3 years.“

“A pistol or revolver license issued outside of those areas does not expire, but the license holder must recertify with the New York State Police every 3 years for a concealed carry license and every 5 years for other types of licenses.”

If you don’t renew, you lose your license.  If you don’t recertify, won’t you also lose your license?  So, the difference is…?  

Because Hochul and her fellow Democrats came under so much fire (pun intended) they created an artificial difference between recertify and renewal.

Gun owners are happy about this but what cannot be ignored is that Hochul is ignoring her own law to save her political behind before the election.  She can now say to anti-2A that she passed these laws and to pro-2A that she exempted them (hoping the pro 2A will ignore the rest of the law and continue to not be motivated to vote). 

What happens after the election and this “difference without a distinction” is challenged by democrats in court?  Can we expect anti-2A Hochul and anti-2A Attorney General Letitia James to rabidly defend us? If these laws continue to stand, expect recertify to become renewal and we will all fall under the new law.

The following is concerned with another part of that bill that Hochul is finding convenient to ignore. 

In 2021, the NY Clay Target League reported that, in NY State, a total of 1,693 student athletes on 103 high school teams are participating on teams for trap, skeet, 5-stand and sporting clays.

Does the bill ban these teams?  It would seem so.

The following wording is taken directly from the law (and a link to the law is provided at the end of this Email).  Because it is so lengthy, items not related to this article are omitted. 

“§ 265.01-e A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location…Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location is a class E felony.

For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:

            …summer camps;

…in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions…school districts…public schools…private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law…charter schools…non-public schools…board of cooperative educational services… special act schools…preschool special education programs…private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities…and any state-operated or state-supported schools

…any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit…buses…or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers…and bus terminals;

…any place used for…sporting events such as…stadiums.”

After very negative feedback, the Hochul administration is using the following section to say that these teams are now legal, in spite of the wording in the law. 

“This section shall not apply to: persons lawfully engaged in hunting activity, including hunter education training.”

Trap shooting, etc. is now hunting, according to Hochul.  (Will you need a hunting license to shoot trap?  Wait until your hunting dog tries to recover those birds!)

If the team should meet in a school parking lot or take a school bus to the competition, the team would seem to violate several other parts of the law Hochul has sponsored.

If Hochul seems like a hypocrite, gun owners may react that it is hypocrisy in a good cause since it enables shooting sports to continue.  But just because we like the result, we must not overlook the fact that Hochul is violating her own law. 

Trying to correct this mess brought on by Hochul’s false emergency, NY State Senator Pam Helming has introduced legislation (S.9530) to protect shooting sports in New York State. The bill would clarify language that does not expressly exempt competitive shooting sports events, often held at “sensitive locations.”  The bill would make clear that firearms are still permitted to be used at shooting sports venues and programs, including school-approved skeet, trap or clay target shooting teams, and organizations such as sportsmen’s clubs, youth clubs and scouting camps.

However, Helming’s proposed law only deals with one part of a very bad law of many parts.  Don’t be distracted from the need to repeal the whole law, even if Helming is successful

And in case you thought only NY State was this nuts; a new California law imposing civil fines on organizations that advertise any “firearms-related product” that makes firearms “appealing to minors” has caused a popular youth target shooting league to suspend operations. Faced with fines of up $25,000 for “any and each instance” of advertising firearms-related products under House Assembly Bill 2571, the California State High School Clay Target League (CASHCTL) posted on its website that it has been forced to close down.

Bill Text: NY S51001 | 2021-2022