Comments on NYSRPA v Bruen  by Tom Reynolds

After the oral arguments on NYSRPA v Bruen, 2^nd Amendment supporters were very optimistic about a victory.  Then, one of our concerns shifted to how narrow or broad the decision might be; we were hoping for Justice Thomas to write the opinion as we anticipated a broad decision from him.  We were not disappointed.  He not only dealt with the lawsuit issues but clarified and reinforced several issues.

It’s important to remember that the 2^nd Amendment codified an existing right.  It did not create a right.  It protects that right.

There were two previous 2^nd Amendment cases that impacted gun rights and this latest case: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.   The Heller decision applied to the District of Columbia’s gun laws, so some liberal states said it did not apply to them.  McDonald said Heller’s positions did apply to all the states. 

In Heller, there are 5 main points which are important to note since they disagree with Democrat talking points and this NYSRPA v Bruen decision reinforced them:

• ·      The 2^nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right and that theme was repeated in the NYSRPA decision (It’s not just for hunting.)

• ·      The right of the people to keep and bear Arms does not depend on service in the militia.

• ·      The reference to “arms” does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th century.  (If it only applied to 18^th century arms, would the 1^st Amendment not apply to TV, radio and the internet?)

• ·       It made legal the possession and use of handguns, but it referenced the home.  (The left and NYS jumped on this and wanted Heller & McDonald to only apply to guns in the home, which necessitated the NYSRPA lawsuit.)

• ·       It rejected any interest-balancing inquiry, what we might call it a Cost Benefit or social cost analysis. (This is very important.  More on it later.)

• ·      An individual who wants to carry a pistol or revolver outside his home must obtain an unrestricted license (concealed carry).  (To NYC, bearing arms meant only carrying between the living room and the kitchen.)

• ·     

• ·      And getting an unrestricted license was the “Catch 22”.  The unrestricted applicant had to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”  (Very subjective!  Celebrities qualified but blacks living in high crime areas did not qualify.)

In New York and other left leaning states, legislatures ignored the Heller & McDonald decisions when passing new laws and governors enforced existing laws that went against the decisions.  Liberal judges often ignored the decisions.

NY City’s gun licensing procedures had two controversial things that were addressed in the NYSRPA decision:

The lawsuit began when two NYC residents, who are NYSRPA members, were denied unrestricted permits.  They sued.  As members, this gave NYSRPA legal standing in the suit.  And they lost all along the way…until the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS held that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.  SCOTUS added that the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

SCOTUS (Justice Thomas) then went further:

Some lower court judges were ignoring the wording of the 2^nd Amendment and deciding cases on the social impact of the law – as the judge saw it.  SCOTUS threw out this cost-benefit analysis used by some courts and said: The Second Amendment does not permit, “judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions.  A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

And to further drive a nail into some liberal talking points, SCOTUS said that the Founders created a Constitution whose meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.  The Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.

In a concurring opinion, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts tried to settle some other issues and cut off likely liberal disinformation: “[N]othing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings…"

To close a door on those who wanted to declare all of NY City a “sensitive place”, SCOTUS said that effort lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

The three liberal judges dissented on the decision but, like the oral arguments, they could not find constitutional grounds so they reverted to what might generally be called emotional and social issues.

Justice Alito criticized the three dissenters, stating "Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided." 

Having lost in the Supreme Court, liberals will continue indirect attacks on 2A.  Expect:

The permitting process will become more bureaucratic and time consuming and will include more training, marksmanship standards and already includes a 5 year license renewal.  In addition, there may be psychological exams to get a license.

Gun owners will be attacked financially.  There is currently a proposed federal law requiring an annual payment of $800 for liability insurance by all owners and another proposal for a 1,000% tax on sales of firearms.

Both gun owners and legal gun sellers will see states use their regulatory power to prevent access to banks, credit and insurance.

Legal gun sellers will see more stringent audits by BATFE and NY State, where they could lose their license over minor paperwork errors.  In addition, NY State now requires increased security measures which will be very expensive and cumbersome.

So, let’s celebrate a well deserved win but, tomorrow, we need to get back to work defending 2A.

And don’t forget to vote in the primaries – TODAY.

History, Common Sense, and the Constitution  by Tom Reynolds

The leftist politicians’ rabid outrage at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on NYSRPA v Bruen consistently says people will be less safe after SCOTUS’ decision.

N.Y. Governor Hochul said the decision was “sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence” and “could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way...This decision isn't just reckless. It's reprehensible.”

President Joe Biden also called the decision disappointing, and one that "contradicts both common sense and the Constitution."

N.Y. City Mayor Eric Adams' statement: “Put simply, this Supreme Court ruling will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence.” 

In response to the SCOTUS decision, Governor Kathy Hochul expects to call an extraordinary session of the state Legislature to tweak the state's gun laws.

Perhaps they should all stop reading Democrat talking points off the teleprompter and, instead, read some scientific studies on what firearms really cause: People use firearms in personal defense many more times than people are killed. Firearms in law abiding citizens’ hands make people safer.  

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

The following abstract from the CDC survey gives both the methodology and the results:

Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994

R M Ikeda ¹, L L Dahlberg, J J Sacks, J A Mercy, K E Powell

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 9591354

Abstract

To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews).

Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed:

(1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder,

(2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and

(3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun.

Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated

1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen;

503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and

497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm.

Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.

And if Hochul, Biden and Adams need more:

In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” In response, the CDC asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence...” This committee** studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:

• ·      “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed…”

• ·      “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…”

• ·      “[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

• ·      “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies…”

Could it be that the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS got it right and that Hochul, Biden and Adams are, once again, on the wrong side of history, common sense and the Constitution?

**Contributor(s): National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors

• ·      Zeldin has consistently won in a toss up Congressional District.  In 2010 he was elected to the New York Senate and in 2014 he was elected to Congress.

• ·      Astorino won election to his Town Board in 1991 and County Legislature in 2003.  He ran for election as the Westchester County Executive and lost in 2005 but won it in 2009 and won again in 2013 and then lost in 2017.  (Westchester is a solidly Democrat county.)  Astorino lost in a 2014 statewide race for NY Governor.  (More on that later.) 

• ·      Wilson narrowly lost in a 2010 bid for NY Comptroller (he got 46% of the statewide vote), his only run for office; this is the best showing by a Republican in a statewide race, since then.    

• ·      Giuliani has not previously run for office.

• ·      Astorino was a County Executive for eight years; he highlights that the Westchester budget was $1.8 billion when he entered office and still $1.8 billion, eight years later, when he left office.  Very importantly, he also successfully fought the Obama administration’s attempt to radically destroy suburban / rural life through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulations.  (Note: the Biden administration is resurrecting this effort and if you don’t know about this you should!  This threatens the very core of suburban / rural living.)

• ·      Wilson was a private investor and corporate restructuring expert who earned millions.  At 36, he left business to pursue charity work and politics.  Wilson highlights the lessons he learned as an executive in the private sector as key to turning around NY State.  (Note, Democrats disparaged Mitt Romney’s similar experience.)    

• ·      Zeldin’s executive experience is as an officer in the Amy and now as a Lieutenant Colonel in the reserves.  He is the only candidate with military experience and serving in Iraq would certainly qualify as working in a high stress environment. 

• ·      Giuliani has no executive experience but has his father as Mayor of NY City to model on.  

The political party “establishment” is a factor. 

Both the Republican and Conservative Parties have endorsed Zeldin as their candidate.  This brought criticism down on the parties as being done too early before the “people” had a chance to speak in the primary.  This also made Zeldin the front runner and gave him an advantage but it also made him a target. 

It should be noted that the Republican Party endorsement was an effort to focus attention and fund raising on one person and, unsuccessfully, avoid intraparty conflict which gives the Democrats talking points.  Kathy Hochul has raised more than $35 million for her campaign while all 4 candidates, together, do not approach that figure. Hochul, as the incumbent governor, also has the ability to dole out state funding, as she did with $600 million for the Buffalo Bills new stadium. (Your tax dollars at work.)

In 2014, several candidates in the Republican Party made a deal with Andrew Cuomo.  If Cuomo did not work against them, these Republicans agreed not to actively support Republican governor candidate Astorino, which hurt Astorino’s campaign and fund raising.  Astorino also charged that Republican Governor’s Association Chairman Chris Christie did not support him in deference to fellow governor Cuomo.  (Christie claims it was a financial decision that, with limited funds, they only supported candidates with a strong chance of winning.)  The election turned out to be low turnout in both parties and the Republican Party blew its best chance to defeat Cuomo.   

Harry Wilson claims to be a lifelong Republican.  He worked in the Obama administration as a Special Advisor to the Treasury Department on the GM Bankruptcy and on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation reform.  (In 2010, Wilson voiced the Democrat talking points when he told Tom Reynolds that he supported the Obama GM scheme because the credit market could not have handled a GM breakup.)  Wilson also contributed to Soros’ funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.  (Wilson claims it was a token donation to a fellow college alum and he would never have done it if he knew Bragg’s positions.)  In an interesting twist, Wilson served on Rob Astorino’s 2009 transition team to Westchester County Executive.

Through Rudy, his father, Andrew Giuliani has been exposed to the inner workings of the Republicans at both the the state and federal level.  During Donald Trump’s presidency he served as associate director of the office of public liaison, then as special assistant to the president.

As the front runner, Zeldin has been the main target of the other three candidates and, therefore, often on the defensive.  All four should have been focusing, instead, on Kathy Hochul.  Some of this deserves further explanation. 

While in the NY Senate, Zeldin voted against Common Core and against the NY Dream Act.  Contrary to political ads, he did not vote for the SAFE Act, as he was on reserve duty (and he later said he would have voted against it).  Zeldin did later vote for NY State budgets that included funding for the SAFE Act; this was a common trait of many Republican Senators at that time, who had opportunities but not the will to roll back Cuomo’s agenda (using NY City Rent Control as leverage is just one example). He does claim to have voted against most Cuomo initiatives.     

In 2011, before newly elected Governor Cuomo had morphed into “Der Fuhrer”, Zeldin said that Cuomo would be a better president than Obama.  (That’s a very low bar to hop over and an interesting question as to who would have been worse!)  Put in context, he was not endorsing Cuomo for President, as has been charged, but being generous at a gathering where his Senate District was getting state money.

All candidates were asked if, should they lose the primary, would they endorse the primary winner.  Astorino, Giuliani and Harry Wilson all clearly answered yes.  Zeldin filibustered but in the middle he indicated he would support the primary winner.  But as an added complication, he is already designated the Conservative Party candidate and would have to resign that in order to not split the vote. The real issue is not the endorsement but not running as a third-party candidate.  But that was not the question.

The debates. 

The governor candidates have had three debates with the last one widely televised.  Candidates don’t seem to understand that they do themselves little good by trying to shout down the other candidates during the debates.  All three attacked Zeldin who actively engaged them, especially Wilson and to a point, Astorino.  The general impression is that Zeldin may have hurt himself by not handling these confrontations well.  Astorino came across as the most polished and changed some minds.      

For the Democrat governor candidate, the polls give Governor Kathy Hochul an overwhelming advantage over her two Democrat opponents: Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi. Since Hochul is considered the sure winner of the Democrat primary, we won’t spend time on it at this point.

Go Woke Go Broke – (But Not the CEO)

The Woke Left doesn’t like much about America and the 2^nd Amendment probably heads its enemies list.  You may enjoy a few stories about how the Woke left is faring in its war on all things American.

In February 2020, Bob Chapek became the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Walt Disney Company. 

In March of 2022, Florida’s legislature passed the Parental Rights in Education legislation, which prohibits Florida’s schools from providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity issues to students in kindergarten through the third grade.

Chapek was originally silent on the bill, which made his LGBTQ employees unhappy.  So, Chapek apologized and the company came out with a tweet saying that it would work to repeal the legislation or strike it down in the courts.  The LGBTQ employees were less unhappy – but definitely not happy - as Chapek was seen as an untrustworthy flip flopper who did not have true allegiance to LGBTQ.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis denounced Disney as “woke” and accused it of trying to inject “California values” into his state and coordinated legislation that revoked the special tax district status that Disney enjoyed in Florida since 1967.  This will cost Disney billions of dollars.

Two dozen members of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Republican Study Commission voiced opposition to allowing Disney to renew its copyright on Mickey Mouse in 2024, based on what they called the company’s "political and sexual agenda." (The copyright would long ago have expired without legislation to continue it.) 

Peter Rice, who served as Disney’s Chairman of Entertainment and Programming, led the fight against Governor DeSantis. Rice was unexpectedly fired, recently, which reportedly stunned "woke" staffers.

Under Chapek, Disney opened a new theme park in China.  Apparently, China’s attitude toward the Uyghur genocide doesn’t bother Disney’s LGBTQ employees.

Disney is also pushing critical race theory on employees through a new plan called “Reimagine Tomorrow,” urging workers to recognize their “white privilege.” Staffers are told to reflect on America’s “racist infrastructure” and “think carefully about whether or not [their] wealth” is derived from racism.

Disney had earlier planned to move 2,000 employees from California to Florida in 2023. That has been delayed until 2026, which will cost Disney millions.  Many of those employees who were being transferred were unhappy to leave LGBTQ friendly California for Florida and are now unhappy to be left in limbo – otherwise known as California.

In March 2020, because of Covid, Chapek laid off approximately 28,000 employees while enacting pay cuts for the company’s senior executives.  But in August 2020, he fully restored the executives’ pay while the employees were still furloughed. Chapek’s pay is reported to be $32 million this year.

Disney just released the new children’s movie Buzz Lightyear and its Woke employees are elated that the cartoon includes a lesbian kiss.  The movie is projected to need a $600 to $700 million box office to break even and fell well short of expectations in its opening weekend.

Disney’s stock price has dropped from $183 to $94 in the past year.

On another front:

Gannett, America’s largest newspaper chain, publishes the far-left USA Today along with 250-plus local papers. It is cutting back on telling its readers what to think.

“Readers don’t want us to tell them what to think,” said the Gannett editors, according to the far-left Washington Post . “They don’t believe we have the expertise to tell anyone what to think on most issues. They perceive us as having a biased agenda.”

A biased agenda!  Oh, say it aint so!  So, Gannett said it aint so – they said it’s the readers’ fault. 

The editorial committee blamed the readers for not knowing the difference between the editorial and news sections: “Today’s contemporary audiences frequently are unable to distinguish between objective news reporting and Opinion content.” 

A few examples of editorials confused by Gannett – but not by the readers - as being objective news: “Inflation is transitory,” “Trump colluded with Russia,” “Jussie Smollett is a victim,” “Trump will never be president,” “Biden is a moderate,” and “Things will go back to normal with Trump gone and the adults back in charge?”

According to the Washington Post, Gannett lost $135 million last year.  Their stock price dropped from $18.86 to $3.08 over the past 5 years.  (That’s not a drop that’s entering an abyss!)

And if that isn’t enough:

The Kellogg Company announced that it was breaking itself up into three companies: a cereal business, a plant-based food business, and a snack business.  The company now says that its basic structure is unworkable. Management hopes that the parts might be worth more than the sum.

The chief executive is going with the growing snack business rather than staying with the cereal business that management helped destroy.

Kellogg did real damage to its brands when it decided to take sides in American politics by boycotting Breitbart. Declaring that Breitbart - and by extension the entire center-right in America - did not conform to Kellogg’s values. Tony the Tiger became the self-declared opponent of Americans who preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

The company had long been suspected of being controlled by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the far-left social justice operation that is its largest shareholder  The wealthy radical leftwing foundation agitates for open borders, supports George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and pushes a host of leftwing causes.

Perhaps the smaller descendants of Kellogg will be a bit less eager to include culture wars in its basic structure. 

Shares had peaked in April of 2016 just short of $82, then dropped to $56 in 2019 and traded in the low $60’s until it just “jumped” to $67.

Newspaper Opinion Piece  by Tom Reynolds

The Opinion Page in Sunday’s Elmira Star-Gazette (Gannett Newspaper) had three “opinions” about gun laws; two were for gun control while the one pro 2^nd Amendment opinion was from SCOPE President Tom Reynolds, which is printed below.

Bad decisions get made when emotional.  NY just passed new gun laws to prove this.

We all want tragedies to stop but these new laws are ineffective, feel-good laws that will not stop these tragedies.  They are aimed at law abiding gun owners and not the criminals who commit these crimes. 

You will now need a license to use a constitutional right; to buy or take possession of America’s most popular semi-automatic rifle, the Modern Sporting Rifle. 

What’s next?  A license to use 1^st Amendment rights to comment publicly about licensing laws? The answer is yes.  Also passed was a law to monitor what you say. It created a task force on “Social Media and Violent Extremism”, which is a poorly disguised step to censor the Right, since NY doesn’t even consider ANTIFA and BLM riots to be violent extremism.   

21 will become the minimum age to purchase or possess any semi-automatic rifle.  Do 18 years old lack sufficient judgement and maturity?  If so, why should they vote at 18 or be able to get an abortion without their parent’s’ consent before 18 or be able to identify as a different gender before 18? 

One law hopes to implement microstamping.  The fact is that microstamping doesn’t work and is easily defeated. 

Another reason for these laws is to drive retailers out of New York.    

NY State had passed a law that guns are a “Public Nuisance”, to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  PLCAA is the law that Biden constantly lies about, saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued.  NY is intentionally exposing gun stores and manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits, in order to bankrupt them with legal fees.    

Acting in tandem with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, NY is increasing record keeping requirements to put gun stores in danger of losing their licenses over minor paperwork infractions.

If they wanted real change, the legislature would have done away with Bail Reform, Gun Free Zones and made District Attorneys, like Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg, enforce the laws.          

Per the FBI’s 5 years statistics on homicides, which are available on line, all rifles, not just semi-automatics, are used less in homicides than: knives or blunt instruments (hammers) or hands & feet.  Semi-automatic rifles are not the problem. 

One minister asked how one could oppose abortion and still be for guns.  Abortions kill a defenseless human being.  Gun owners want to protect themselves and others so they do not become defenseless murder victims.

Our core problem is that the leftist culture is a culture without morals and ethics.  A culture that denigrates American values and a culture without God.  Murder is a sin but when is that aspect discussed?  Change the culture not the laws.

One anti-gun opinion tried to say that being pro-gun was incompatible with being anti-abortion. That issue was addressed in Reynolds’ article. 

That anti-gun article contained numerous erroneous assumptions about AR15’s and absolved “Hollywood, wokeism, videogames and other mythical scapegoats” of any blame in murders.  Of course, it also threw in one of the left’s favorite boogey men, it blamed white domestic terrorists for targeting non-white Americans, which ignores that non-whites are the overwhelmingly the killers of other non-whites.  But hey, never let a leftist talking point go to waste, no matter how incorrect.   

One of the pro-gun control opinions centered around raising the age to own 21, the hypocrisy of which was also addressed in Reynolds’ opinion.  The anti-gun author used Gary Cooper in the movie “High Noon” as the rationale why a rifle is not needed for self-defense.  And there you have an example of the intellectual depth of the left, when they quote a fictional movie to defend their position.     

Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge about guns, gun control and the Constitution fills the pages of the leftist media.  How many people read these erroneous statements and accepted them as truth.  Pro gun defenders need to speak out with the facts.

Dumb Jocks  by Tom Reynolds

San Francisco Giants manager Gabe Kapler told reporters, "I don't plan on coming out for the anthem going forward until I feel better about the direction of our country." Later, Kapler wrote about his disillusionment with what he called "the lack of delivery of the promise of what our national anthem represents."

Joe Biden’s attempt to create a “Ministry of Truth” to persecute his political enemies was rejected as unamerican and unconstitutional.  Sounds like a, “delivery of the promise of what our national anthem represents” when American citizens can peacefully stop their government from infringing upon citizens’ rights.  When people try that in most other countries, they get crushed.

If Kapler looked around, he would see a multitude of major league players making more than a million dollars a year who are from Mexico, the Caribbean and South America.  Sounds like the USA is a land of opportunity.  And not just for baseball players; our southern border is overflowing with people trying to get in – not out.

Kapler’s description of the National Anthem called it a: “…thoughtless display of celebration for a country that refuses to take up the concept of controlling the sale of weapons used nearly exclusively for the mass slaughter of humans”.  According to Kapler, the Modern Sporting Rifle, (Assault Rifle to him) is used “nearly exclusively for the mass slaughter of humans.”  It’s estimated there are 15 to 20 million of those rifles in civilian hands.  His comment is both uninformed and a lie.  15 million guns being used nearly exclusively in mass slaughters would be called a civil war! 

Did Kapler miss that the Chinese government disarmed its citizens and that some of those citizens, the Uyghurs, are now the victims of crimes against humanity by…the Chinese government. Now there is a mass slaughter of humans!  I’ll bet the Uyghurs wished they had a few AR15’s.

When the 2^nd Amendment was passed, the signers hadn’t just returned from hunting deer, they had just freed a country and they meant to keep it free.  But Kapler probably missed that history class.

The next time you watch a ballgame, check out the security police.  I’ll bet they are armed.  It’s the same old story for the celebrity elite: “security for me but not for thee”. In a liberal’s world, self-defense is a no-no, except for themselves.

SCOPE recently wrote about the need to change the culture back to traditional values.  Baseball is traditionally called “Our National Pastime”.  That need for cultural change also applies to baseball.

Not too many years ago, Chicago White Sox Shortstop Tim Anderson would have been called a “hotdog”.  In today’s society, we prefer psychological adjectives such as “self-absorbed” and “narcissistic”.  He doesn’t hesitate to call attention to himself and if that causes the pitcher some embarrassment, that’s just collateral damage to the monument Anderson is building to himself.  (Oh for the days when Bob Gibson would have taught Anderson that there is a cost to his antics.)

In a Sports Illustrated interview, Anderson defended his antics: “I kind of feel like today’s Jackie Robinson…That’s huge to say. But it’s cool, man, because he changed the game, and I feel like I’m getting to a point to where I need to change the game.”  Robinson, you may remember, was a serious barrier breaker and comparing Anderson’s antics to what Robinson accomplished not only is nonsense but it demeans Robinson’s accomplishments.  But then again, Anderson specializes in nonsense while demeaning others.

Comparing himself to Jackie Robinson would seem to open Anderson up to some ridicule and derision; especially what used to be called “bench jockeying”.  But not in today’s “politically correct” world of microaggressions.  When Yankee third baseman Josh Donaldson facetiously called him “Jackie”, the calls of racism echoed though the land.

Racism?  You gotta be kidding.  But in today’s leftist culture, there’s no penalty for screaming racism without a basis.

If Anderson had said he was the greatest fan attraction since Babe Ruth, what would have been the reaction if Donaldson had called him Babe?

Tim Anderson is just a self-absorbed lightweight but the media doesn’t don’t you dare call him that since that will brand them a racist. 

Remember in the old cultural days when sportsmanship was lauded and people were proud to salute the national anthem?

And we can always count on the National Felon League to chime in when nonsense is being discussed.  Remember, this is the league that condemned Tim Tebow for kneeling to God but endorsed Colin Kaepernick for kneeling to disparage the USA.

Jack Del Rio recently tweeted that there was a comparison between the nationwide riots of 2020 and the January 6^th assault on the Capitol.  The reaction could not have been more defensive, by the Left, than if he tweeted that there was fraud in the 2020 election.  Del Rio was fined $100,000 and his boss, Washington head coach Ron Rivera, issued a statement filled with left wing propaganda.  Rivera said that Del Rio now “…understands the distinction between that dark day (January 6^th) and peaceful protests.”  Peaceful protests?  I wonder if Rivera thinks the fighting in Ukraine is another example of “peaceful protests”? 

Rivera continued to prove he is an intellectual lightweight by saying, “I want to make it clear that our organization will not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the actions of those on January 6^th who sought to topple our government.”  So much for the 1st Amendment. 

In some ways, there is no comparison between the events since the “peaceful protesters” carried and used guns while those that sought to “topple our government” were doing so unarmed.  The first coup in history where the rebels came unarmed.  

Maybe the jocks aren’t the dumbest.  Since we’re writing about NFL nonsense: at the same news conference that she pushed for more gun control, Governor Hochul forked over $600 million and Erie County added $250 million (all $850 million is taxpayers’ dollars) to build a new stadium for the benefit of the Buffalo Bills’ billionaire owners and the billionaires running the NFL and the millionaires playing in the NFL.  Meanwhile, the Washington franchise is holding up governments in the DC area for sweetheart deals to buy them a new stadium.  Any guesses as to the amount of fraud and collusion in those two deals?

Few have the courage to speak up and call it nonsense, even when it is nonsense.  We still have the 1^st Amendment, why not use it to call out nonsense.

True Feelings  by Tom Reynolds

A friend recently said that picking a political candidate to back is like buying a lottery ticket; you hope you got it right but your chances are slim.

In the case of some politicians, you never know their true feelings until they no longer need your vote or they let it slip out.

This short article reinforces the need to keep a politicians’ feet-to-the-fire, and hope they don’t betray you when they are going out-the-door. 

3 New York Republicans join Democrats in gun bill vote (nystateofpolitics.com)

Unfortunately, when they are going-out-the-door, some forget that they were elected on their stated beliefs and how those beliefs agree with their constituent’s beliefs.  It’s not a sign of some greater virtue to finally reveal their true feelings and, in effect, say “fooled ya”, when the constituents can no longer react in the voting booth.  Others who get elected and reelected should have on their tombstone, “Here lies the lesser of two evils”.

When Chris Jacobs slipped and let us know his true feelings, 2^nd Amendment organizations like SCOPE jumped in quickly and ended his political career, at least for now.  (Some like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton never go away.) 

Some like John Katko merely can say “fooled ya” and go live on government pensions.

Others like Michelle Malliotakis may go on as the “lesser of two evils”.  Not exactly a campaign phrase to excite voters.

We need SCOPE and its members to be ever vigilant and to unhesitatingly call out politicians when those politicians try to wiggle around their party values, campaign promises and constitutional standards.

Interpretations?  by Tom Reynolds

Why does SCOPE worry that seemingly straight-forward words in laws will be twisted by liberals and used against gun owners?  Because liberals have abandoned any appearance of common sense and when they are in charge…right is wrong, boys are girls and birds are fish.

Last week, a California appeals court ruled that bees are fish.  You did not misread that statement it ruled that bees are fish.

In 2019, the California Fish and Game Commission designated four species of bumble bees as endangered under California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA), which explicitly applies only to “native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.” Bees can be considered a type of fish based on CESA’s definition of the category, which asserts that a “fish” is a “wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.”

Bees are commonly defined by science as: invertebrates—animals that lack a backbone—and they live on land. Insects with wings closely related to wasps and ants, known for their role in pollination and, in the case of the best-known bee species, the western honey bee, for producing honey. 

Fish are commonly defined by science as: limbless aquatic vertebrates (animal with a backbone) with fins and internal gills.  They have never been known to pollinate of produce honey. 

Several of the state’s large agricultural groups argued that the word “invertebrate” clearly refers to an aquatic species. But on May 31, 2022, the California 3rd District Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges wrote in  their ruling that, “although the term fish is commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the legislative history supports the liberal interpretation of the Act.”

So, by act of the California legislature and with the approval of the California Court of Appeals, bees are now fish and fish are now invertebrates.  (That fish are invertebrates should make fishermen happy since we will now have fewer problems skinning them.)

Science begs to differ with the California legislature in other ways.  Entomology is the study of insects, which includes bees. The branch of entomology that focuses exclusively on the study of bees is melittology, but it may also be called apiology. The study of fishes is called ichthyology. 

Apparently, “legislative history” is the ultimate determining factor in biology, in a radically liberal state like California.  (And coming to New York?)  Based on the court’s ruling, if California’s legislature repealed the Law of Gravity, would it be upheld by that same court?  After all, there would be no doubt of the legislature’s purpose and we have a precedent that the laws of science and nature do not apply when they disagree with the legislature’s purpose.

Do you think that is insane?  Count on California to top itself.

A $1.5 Billion bill is proposed in California’s State Senate to buy back water rights that farmers use for their business – growing food – and leave the water in the river for the benefit of endangered fish species.  After all, what do farmers contribute to the economy other than…food. 

And won’t that effect the endangered bees / fish that don’t live in the water and depend on land plants to survive?

And if you thought a bee is a fish isn’t crazy enough…liberal idiocy is not limited to the “Left Coast”.

Three Wisconsin boys are facing sexual harassment charges from their middle school over accusations that they used incorrect gender pronouns on a fellow student.  They are being charged by school officials with Title IV violations, which prohibits gender-based harassment.

Luke Berg, the attorney representing the boys disagreed.  "It’s not sexual harassment under Title IX, under their own policy, under federal law, and it’s probably a First Amendment violation. Almost certainly, if that’s their theory, that solely using the wrong pronoun, that that would be a First Amendment violation,"

Aren’t school officials one of the categories than can Red Flag Law a gun owner?  Apparently, judgement and common sense are not necessary traits to become a school official.

Monday’s Newspaper  by Tom Reynolds

Monday’s newspapers had some interesting things in it – and not in it.

Gunmen in southern Nigeria opened fire on Christian worshippers on Sunday, killing at least 50 people.  Per Australia’s University of Sydney, “In Nigeria, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, military rifles (assault weapons) and handguns.”  Unfortunately for 50 church goers, in Nigeria as in America, criminals didn’t obey the law. 

One has to wonder how many church goers would be alive if the worshippers had been as armed as their attackers?  Would the attack have even taken place if the terrorists had known that the worshippers were heavily armed?

Joe Biden is worried about “right wing terrorists” at school board meetings.  Nigeria could show him what real terrorism is like.

Another article focused on, “Guns divide faith communities”.  As you might imagine, it focused on gun possession being anti-religious. 

One activist asked: ”How can you be pro-life and not support getting rid of assault rifles?” Speaking for those who are anti-abortion, abortion kills a defenseless human being and gun owners do not want to be defenseless victims, so we arm to protect ourselves and others.  That’s how we can be anti-abortion and pro-gun.    

But let’s take that answer further.  Sean Connery’s famous line in The Untouchables movie made fun of the stupidity of “bringing a knife to a gun fight”.  We want to be as armed or, better yet, more heavily armed than any assailant.  If the assailant has a knife, we want a handgun.  If the assailant has a hand gun, we want an “Assault Weapon” with lots of rounds of ammunition in the magazine - or a pump action shotgun with lots of rounds in the magazine.  Since women are smaller than men, to defend themselves they need a weapon tailored to their need: a light weight, light recoil “Assault Rifle” with a full magazine works fine.  That’s why the Modern Sporting Rifle – misnamed as an “Assault Rifle” - is one of the preferred weapons for home defense.

Another article pushed long waiting periods for the purchase of guns and gave all the reasons for it.  It neglected to list even one reason for shorter waiting periods.  For instance, it missed that if a person is threatened, they would not want to wait 30 days to get a gun for defense.  After all, a Restraining Order is just a piece of paper and while police may be minutes away, help from a gun arrives at 1,500 feet per second. 

What was hardly mentioned was that Monday was June 6^th.  Didn’t something rather important happen on that day, to save civilization, 78 years ago? 

Snoopy had a cartoon tribute and there was a one sentence note about D Day in the section, “Today In History”.  More space in that section was given to rallies in support of Black Lives Matter and George Floyd.  Rallies?  Seemed more like riots as I remember them.

It might have been a nice counterpoint to the anti-gun articles to point out what Hitler did in Western Europe is what tyrants always do, they disarm the citizens to prevent effective opposition.  Fortunately, for Western Europe, America and its allies had guns.

New York State Strikes Again  by Tom Reynolds

Never letting a tragedy go to waste, the New York legislature just passed a slew of bad legislation concerning guns - as legislators hurried out the door to work for reelection. 

Like the redistricting issue, as long as the left has unopposed control of the law-making process, they’ll push their agenda, ignoring facts, logic and the constitution.  Their goal is not protecting citizens but disarming citizens.  Once those laws are enacted, fighting them will cost thousands of dollars in court while the Albany swamp will defend those laws using the bottomless pockets of taxpayers. 

By-the-way, that’s why they’re going after the NRA.  Not because of its political contributions -the NRA is not one of the big political contributors - but because the NRA has the dollars to fight back, in court.

The new laws are meaningless in terms of safety.  Why?  Check out the FBI’s statistics covering a 5 years period on homicides; they’re available on line.  All rifles - not just semi-automatics:

• are used less in homicides than knives,         
• are used less in homicides than blunt instruments (hammers), 
• are used less in homicides than hands & feet. 

Semi-automatic rifles are not the problem

The left likes to talk about the Buffalo shooter and the Uvalde shooter but the Buffalo shooter said he chose New York because of its strict gun laws, which made armed opposition less likely.  And all schools are gun free zones, which the Uvalde shooter knew.  Again, less likely to run into armed opposition.

If they wanted real change, the legislature would have done away with:  Bail Reform, Gun Free zones and made District Attorneys, like Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and San Francisco’ Chesa Boudin, enforce the laws.   (Boudin is polling 10 points down in his Tuesday recall election.)     

One of the new laws extends existing licensing procedures for handguns to semi-automatic rifles.  It will require a license to purchase or take possession of a semi- automatic rifle.  If you thought getting a pistol permit was fun… 

You will now need a license to use your constitutional right.  What’s next?  A license to use your 1^st Amendment rights to comment publicly about licensing laws? 

This is “License Creep”.  In 1934, automatics were licensed, then handguns, now semi-automatic rifles.  Next: Licenses for pump action shotguns?  

And the license will have to be recertified every 5 years.  More bureaucracy to deal with.

Borrow a semi-automatic rifle from a buddy to try out at the firing range and you will have committed a crime.  (Without that license you took possession, which is a crime.)

The law also raises to 21 the minimum age to purchase or possess any semi-automatic rifle.  Why not leave it at 18?  Do 18 years old lack judgement?  Lack maturity?  If that is so, why should they vote at 18?  Why should they be able to get an abortion without their parent’s’ consent before 18.  Why should they be able to identify as a different gender before 18?

Another unspoken reason for these laws, besides skirting around the 2^nd Amendment, is to drive retailers out of New York.  You can’t buy guns, legally if no one is selling guns legally.

Previously, NY State passed a law that guns are a “Public Nuisance”, to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA).  That is the law that Biden constantly lies about, saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued.  In truth, NY also is exposing gun stores as well as manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits which PLCAA shielded them from.    

Now, NYS requires a license for customers to buy the most popular firearm - the Modern Sporting Rifle.  This will slow down sales.  Without sales, retailers are out of business.

Now, retailers will have to store guns in a safe or secured area.  Gun retailers usually have dozens of guns on display which will now have to be moved into secure storage when closing and brought back out when opening.  In addition, ammo will have to be stored out of reach of customers, which means hiring additional staff to service the customer.  And to top it off, gun stores will have to install a high-level security system costing thousands of dollars.  The cost of a gun just went up because of “overhead expenses”.  But we need more inflation, right?

Acting in tandem with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) NYS is increasing record keeping requirements and putting gun stores in danger of losing their licenses over a minor paperwork infraction.

What the NY legislature and governor overlook (intentionally) is that the laws only effect law abiding citizens and not criminals.  90% of homicides involve illegal guns or illegal users.  More laws won’t stop criminals.

Our core problem is that the leftist culture is a culture without morals, a culture without ethics, a culture without American values and a culture without God.  Change the culture not the laws.         

And to all those hunters and others who believed the gun control movement was not coming for them, guess again.  How many times will theses gun owners need to be slapped before they realize that the left is serious about taking away their guns.

The legislators who crammed through these laws - in the tradition of Andrew Cuomo and the SAFE Act - will be running for reelection.  If we want to regain New York and our rights, we need to tell these politicians how we feel about reelecting them.  Chris Jacobs just found out he should not have messed with gun owners.  It’s time for other politicians to get that message.