SCOPE NY

Briefings

  • 05/27/2020 12:36 AM | Anonymous
    The Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester, NY Quarter Master issued an all call to anyone who can help replenish their food cupboard. They are providing boxes of food to needy veterans during this crisis.  They need:
    • Non-perishable boxed foods – rice, pasta, cereal, oatmeal, prepared meals, etc.
    • Non-perishable can food – fruit, tuna, vegetables, beans, prepared meals, etc.
    • Small packs of toilet paper or paper goods
    • Baby items – diapers, cleansing wipes, etc.
    • Personal care items – soap, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash
    I will be personally collecting product donations on SATURDAY MORNINGS FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OF THE CRISIS from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and I will deliver them to the VOC each Monday. Bring items to the clubhouse – no contact drop off.
    If you cannot donate vital supplies, you can donate cash or a check to Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester. 
    ALSO – we have two veterans who need a vehicle to get them to and from life saving medical procedures. Our good friend, Jerry Slater, put out an appeal and was able to generate donations from ORGC ($500), Blue Star Mothers ($500) and Legion Riders ($500) to put toward a vehicle.  If you have a vehicle you can sell or donate, know of someone who can help or if you would like to donate to this immediate need, please call me, Steve Verdi, 585-739-3195.
    Our veterans in need, need us more now than ever before. Please help. I’m driving deliveries of much needed supplies today to North Greece and Palmyra for VOC. I hope you can help.
    Steve, Verdi, Chairman BOD
    Via Frankie LaMarca
  • 05/20/2020 10:38 AM | Anonymous

    This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

    The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

    The justices denied review in Wexford Health v. Garrett, involving whether a prisoner who does not use all the administrative remedies available to him before filing a lawsuit can “cure” that failure by filing an amended complaint after he is released from prison. The question came to the court in the case of Kareem Garrett, who was a prisoner in the Pennsylvania correctional system when he filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against prison officials and medical staff in 2014. Garrett alleged, among other things, that the officials and staff ignored his serious medical needs – by ending his use of a walker, for example, and stopping his psychiatric medications. The defendants in the case argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to dismiss the claims that Garrett had not first raised administratively, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed. It ruled that although Garrett had been required to exhaust his administrative remedies, his May 2015 release from prison cured the problem.

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of review. Thomas observed that the courts of appeals are divided on the question presented by Wexford Health’s petition and that the resolution of that question “will have significant ramifications for not only prisons and prison officials but also federal courts” because of the large number of lawsuits filed by prisoners challenging prison conditions. Until the question is resolved, Thomas emphasized, prisoners in different parts of the country will face different and unequal requirements under the PLRA.

    The justices also turned down a trio of petitions (herehere and here) asking them to review rulings by lower courts finding that government officials were entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuits. In two of the cases, “friend of the court” briefs supporting the requests for review had urged the justices not only to grant review, but also to rethink the doctrine of qualified immunity more broadly, but the justices denied the petitions without comment.

    The justices’ next conference is scheduled for Thursday, May 21. We expect orders from that conference on Tuesday, May 26, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

  • 05/20/2020 10:34 AM | Anonymous

    U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court has re-listed the ten Second Amendment cases it has previously distributed for conference.

    This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

    The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

    Ten Second Amendment cases have been re-listed for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 15 May, 2020.  As noted in the SCOTUSBLOG post above, a writ of certiorari is usually not granted until a case has been heard at conference at least twice. The ten Second Amendment cases have now been to conference at least three times each. Perhaps, because of the number of cases, the Supreme Court Justices are taking more time on this issue.

    No orders for any of the Second Amendment cases were issued as of Monday, 18 May.

    It is noted in each case whether the Department of Justice has submitted a brief in the case.

    The cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:

    Mance v. Barr

    The DOJ has filed a brief claiming the law is Constitutional.

    A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).

    Rogers v. Grewal

    A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Pena v. Horan

    A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive “approved” handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Gould v. Lipson

    A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Cheeseman v. Polillo

    A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Ciolek v. New Jersey

    A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Worman v. Healy

    A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    An amicus brief was filed by 94 members of Congress, asking the Court to uphold the Second Amendment and to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

    Malpasso v. Pallozzi

    A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Culp v. Raoul

    A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of some states, in the 7th Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    Wilson v. Cook County

    A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.

    The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

    The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019.  Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.

    Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as “assault weapons”. One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.

    In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San  Jose. This is not due until June 22, 2020.

    No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.

    The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference each week until the end of June. There is an opportunity for the Court to issue orders after each conference. There is a reasonable possibility the Court will decide to take one, several, or all of the Second Amendment cases before the end of the term.

    However, oral arguments would not be heard until next fall, possibly after the election.



  • 05/18/2020 2:26 AM | Anonymous

    Special to Toronto Sun

    May 6, 2020 3:53 PM EDT

    JOHN LOTT AND GARY MAUSER

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has unveiled a ban on the sale of 1,500 models and variants of firearms.

    Some of these guns are already banned, but none of the prohibited weapons are “military-grade assault weapons” — the supposed target of Trudeau’s measure.

    And in the wake of the horrific murders of 22 people in Nova Scotia last month, it isn’t surprising that public opinion is on his side. A recent Angus Reid Institute survey found 78% of Canadians support a ban on “civilian possession of assault weapons.”

    After all, who needs military-grade assault weapons? As Trudeau put it: “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.”  In fact, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle.

    It just looks like a military weapon, and Trudeau is playing off of people’s and the media’s ignorance about guns. Indeed, Trudeau has exempted Indigenous Canadians from his ban so they can continue hunting with them.

    Usually, guns such as the AR-15 are called “military-style weapons.” They are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, but not in the way they operate.

    The Canadian army uses select-fire rifles — the C7 and C8 — which can be switched to fire from semi-automatic to a fully-automatic (machine gun) mode of firing bullets. Canada banned the sale of machine guns to civilians in 1978.

    The AR-15 uses the same sort of bullet as small-game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and inflicts the same damage.

    The gun’s .223-inch rounds are banned for deer-hunting in most provinces and U.S. states since the small bullet is likely to prolong the animal’s suffering with a wound rather than inflicting a swift death.

    Contrary to Trudeau’s claims, no self-respecting military in the world uses these semi-automatic rifles.  Trudeau would at least be logically consistent if he proposed banning all semi-automatic rifles. But he has apparently decided to ban guns based on how they look rather than on how they function.

    Semi-automatic firearms can be devastating weapons, but they also protect people and save lives.  While police are extremely important in deterring crime, they virtually always arrive after crimes have been committed.

    It is the most vulnerable people — including those who are weaker physically such as women and the elderly — who benefit the most from owning guns.

    The United States tried a ban that was similar to Trudeau’s proposal, and it produced no benefits.  Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen.

    In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the FBI. A decade after the ban, in 2014, the murder rate had fallen to 4.4 per 100,000 people.

    Even a study sponsored by the Clinton administration (which imposed the ban) found: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

    It doesn’t help Trudeau’s argument that countries with the most guns tend to have the lowest per capita rate of mass public shooters and lower homicide rates.

    Trudeau claims: “These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” But he completely ignores that guns can help protect people from violent crime.

    Even Trudeau’s father somewhat understood this last point.  After he retired from politics, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau asked the RCMP for a special exemption that would allow him to carry a handgun for protection. It’s unclear whether his request was ever approved.

    When compared to the U.S., there’s no doubt Canada’s murder rate is lower. But the last UN International Crime Victimization Survey in 2000 compared the same definitions of violent crimes in the United States and Canada, and the violent crime rate was over 50% higher in Canada.

    The AR-15, like any gun, is indeed very dangerous. However, it is not a weapon “designed for the theater of war.”

    Banning “assault weapons” will not make Canadians safer.

    — Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and Mauser is professor emeritus in the marketing department at Simon Fraser University.













  • 05/16/2020 9:45 PM | Anonymous

    Colorado's coronavirus death toll dropped significantly on Friday after the Colorado Department of Health and Environment made a major change in how state officials report COVID-19 deaths.

    State officials are now distinguishing between people who died "with COVID-19" and those who died "due to COVID-19." Previously, officials lumped all the deaths together, meaning people who had COVID-19, yet did not die directly from the virus, were included in the state's official death count.

    The change resulted in nearly 300 fewer COVID-19 deaths in Colorado, KDVR-TV reported.

    On Friday afternoon, the Colorado Department of Health reported 1,150 COVID-19 deaths. But after the change, that count dropped to 878.

    "We have been reporting at the state, deaths among people who had COVID-19 at the time of death and the cause of that death may or may not have been COVID-19," Dr. Eric France, Colorado Health Department's chief medical officer, said Friday, according to KDVR.

    "We started to hear stories about 'are these correct or are these incorrect?'" he explained.

    COVID-19 death counts have received increased scrutiny over the last month as the national death count continues to increase by an average of 1,000-2,000 deaths per day.

    Frustration over COVID-19 death classification boiled over in Colorado this week after state officials included the death of 35-year-old Sebastian Yellow as a COVID-19 death.

    However, Colorado's Montezuma County coroner, George Deavers, determined that Yellow had died from alcohol poisoning, having a blood alcohol content of .55 at the time of his death, which is over the lethal limit.

    "It wasn't COVID, it was alcohol toxicity," Deavers said. "Yes, he did have COVID, but that is not what took his life."


  • 05/15/2020 2:18 PM | Anonymous

    “Hello Don,

    Good to hear from you. Hope your doing well and staying safe. 

    Phase 1 started today in the Finger Lakes. It includes recreational activities and hunting. Several clubs have interpreted this to mean that they can reopen. Just important to follow the social distancing rules and not do meetings or congregate in club house. (Emphasis added)

    https://www.whec.com/news/phase-one-of-reopening-underway-in-rochester/5730419/

    Chris Catt
    Chief of Staff, Senator Pam Helming 
    315-568-9816

  • 05/14/2020 7:00 AM | Anonymous

    Gun control advocates see gun crime as an opportunity to advance their agenda, even in situations where a gun control failure allows the crime to occur. Their attempt to hijack the Parkland high school shooting for their own purposes is a perfect illustration of this.

    The response to the Parkland murders was spontaneous. Florida and several other states rushed to pass unconstitutional legislation called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) also commonly known as ‘Red Flag’ Laws. These are believed to prevent such future horrific events yet “red flags” already existed in Parkland and were ignored by both the school system and the Sheriff’s department. The young killer was ‘flagged’ many times but suffered no consequences. Both agencies were intent on protecting their reputations. The federal government was not free of responsibility either. 

    A similar law took effect in New York on August 24, 2019. These ‘Red Flag’ Laws are intended as a way to keep “dangerous” people from possessing firearms. Your family members, ex-family members, school personnel and law enforcement are empowered to make an unproven accusation resulting in a court order stripping an individual of both their firearms and their Constitutional rights. 

    New York’s and other state’s ERPO laws fail to safeguard not only the 2nd amendment but also the 5th and 14th amendments. Both guarantee in our nation’s Bill of Rights:  “That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”.

    Due process protections are side-stepped, and the standard of evidence required to remove an individual’s personal property is greatly minimized. The person who is the object of the complaint receives no notification nor do they have an opportunity to refute a possible false accusation. 

    You are considered guilty until proven innocent and only by hiring a lawyer and expending time and a great deal of money can the accusation and confiscation possibly be reversed. There is no requirement for the accuser to sign an affidavit nor any penalty for false accusations.

    No one wants a repeat of Parkland, Virginia Beach, El Paso, Dayton, or Odessa. However, removing the gun does not remove the threat. It may only change the means. Legislation that trades constitutional protections for the hope of future security is truly a red flag that should concern us all. Gun owners may not be the only ones impacted by the next unconstitutional law. Elected officials took an oath of office to protect the Constitution, not revoke its guaranteed rights. 

    Laura Sepka,

    Vice Chair

    Wayne County SCOPE

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

     

  • 05/10/2020 10:03 PM | Anonymous

    Brian Manktelow NY State Assembly 130th district
    UPDATE: media outlets are now reporting that the Governors Office is Backtracking and saying those who hit their benchmarks on May 15 can begin the reopening process. For those who haven’t, the PAUSE has been extended until June 7”, Richard Azzopardi, spokesperson for the Governor. This may make a difference for some in UPSTATE NY. Speaking with other officials in my District we are are still on tract as of today to start the reopening, starting with Phase 1.

    WE need to go back to work!

    The Speaker of the Assembly needs to call us back immediately to END Gov. Cuomo’s expanded emergency powers and RESTORE the traditional authorities given to the Legislature so we have a say in the Future of OUR state.

    We demand action NOW! Upstate matters and we will not give up this fight nor will I as Assemblyman for our 130th District.


  • 05/08/2020 9:48 PM | Anonymous

    Lucas Day May 08, 2020, Finger Lakes Daily News
    State Senator Pam Helming and Assemblyman David DiPietro today announced that they are introducing legislation to repeal new powers granted earlier this year to Governor Cuomo. Under S.7919, the Governor of New York was given the power to take virtually any action he deems necessary when there is a declared emergency. This measure gives him the ability to make changes and enact legislation without consulting the state legislature, holding hearings, or providing opportunities for public input. He may declare an emergency in virtually any circumstance.

    Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, in 55 days, the Governor has unilaterally enacted or changed 262 laws.

    “No Governor, Democrat or Republican, should have the ability to make hundreds of unilateral decisions without input from or votes in the state legislature. In times of crisis, decisions must often be made quickly, but they should not be made in a way that undermines the foundation of our democracy and the system of checks and balances. This is something that should concern all of us, regardless of partisan politics. State legislators are elected by their constituents to represent them, people do not solely vote for a governor. The State Legislature and Executive were created to work together for a reason. The State Senate and Assembly cannot abdicate our role in government as legislators and simply leave the difficult decisions to the Governor. I believe that it is our job to listen to our constituents, research the issues, vote and be wholly accountable to the people we represent,” said Senator Helming.

    “Gov. Cuomo has overstepped, superseded and, frankly, taken advantage of his executive authority in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis,” DiPietro said. “We have legislative, executive, and judicial branches to balance and check each other. This governor will do anything and everything to extend his power and control over the other branches, which is unjust and simply unamerican. We have to step up and do our duty as legislators to limit this as best we can. We cannot disregard our role and duty to the people of New York.”

  • 05/08/2020 9:00 PM | Anonymous

    May 8, 2020, Bill Karr
    All of a sudden, it seems like guns aren’t quite so distasteful anymore, since now with uncertainty in the air due to the Covid virus, gun sales have rocketed, and a full 90 to 95 percent of all new gun sales for many gun shops are NEW gun buyers!

    It’s interesting how our rights under the Constitution fade in importance until they’re denied, or needed! Then all of a sudden, the non-believers become believers. Actually, a lot of these new gun owners are getting their backs up when they find that their very own legislation, pushed through in previous years, has come back to bite them in the way of waiting periods, background checks and delays.

    And what’s the most popular gun being purchased? The one generally most-despised by these newly converted anti-gun, gun buyers: Pistols! A full two thirds of the new gun buyers states that they are buying the gun for protection.

    Let me give you an idea of how many guns are being sold right now: 2.6 million guns were sold in March alone. Some gun shops have sold the same number of guns in one month as they usually sell in 2 or 3 years. Handgun sales increased 91.1% year over year, while long gun sales jumped 73.6%.

    In February, well before the corona virus was a household word, the FBI’s background check system had already reported 2.8 million inquiries from potential gun-buyers. That was up from 2 million during the same time last year, and the third-highest monthly total since the agency created the system in 1998. And since then, gun sales increased even more along with demand.

    These are all Americans who are purchasing a firearms as a way to protect themselves amid fears that the coronavirus situation could lead to a complete societal breakdown.

    According to the National Rifle Association: “Nothing is more important than protecting ourselves and our families -- especially during these times of uncertainty. Yet, some anti-gun lawmakers are exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to deny you and your loved ones your fundamental right to self-defense and your Second Amendment rights.

    “These anti-gun and anti self defense extremists deem gun stores ‘non-essential,’ they shut down issuance of firearm permits, and, in some locations, they have created extreme delays for background checks required for firearm transfers. Some jurisdictions have even put added restrictions on firearm transfers, making it all but impossible for many law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. All of this is happening against a backdrop of reported prisoner furloughs and law enforcement only arresting for the most serious of crimes.”

    All of that is absolutely true, but fortunately, only three states have ordered gun dealers and stores to be closed: New York, Massachusettes and New York City. Oh yeh, I keep forgetting that Puerto Rico is a “state”...they also have ordered all guns stores closed. Five states are in the process of developing a response, and one of those is California, of course.

    So, there’s very, very few things positive about this entire virus pandemic, but there is one good thing that is without a doubt going to come out of it: New gunowners, and many, many more of them.

    And along with that has come a realization that nothing is forever, and that complacency in simply “assuming” that the freedoms, liberties, free commerce and unending supplies and food in the United States are forever would be a big mistake. They can be stifled. And the only thing that guarantees they will be there for us, along with our liberty, is the fact that we are an armed society. And will be, forever.

    So, why, all of a sudden are there no gun protestors in the street, and that in fact, many of them are now buying guns? Because their lives and well being are threatened, and they suddenly realize that you can’t fight thieves and armed thugs with a stick and a sign that proclaims you as an anti-gun person. It just won’t stop a bad guy!

    Welcome on board the train to liberty and understanding the Constitution.

    —Bill Karr

    Karr is Northern California editor for Western Outdoor News (www.wonews.com)

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

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

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

[ Site Developed By A2Z Enhanced Digital Solutions ]

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software