Gun Control Evolution of Biden and the Dems  by Don Smith, Wayne County chapter Chairman

Early in his career Joe Biden said gun regulation was ineffective.  Biden and many Senate Democrats supported the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] of 1986, which curtailed government abuse, recognized that many gun control laws were ineffective and wanted laws to be aimed at criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.  This bill was made necessary because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms used a previous strict Gun Control Act to impede lawful gun ownership. 

The Senate Congressional Record, July 9,1985 lays out the reasons for FOPA (p.18158):

• “The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] was conceived in the notion that law enforcement needed to be directed at the real criminal....” (emphasis added.)
  
  
• “The sponsors and proponents of the Gun Control Act of 1968 claimed that it would significantly reduce the rate of crime, particularly crimes involving the use of firearms. It has not. Instead, between 1967 and 1982, the national homicide and handgun-homicide rates rose 50 percent, while robbery rates and robberies involving the use of firearms have nearly tripled.”(emphasis added.)
  
  
•  “It is important that we who are in the Senate in 1985 pause to remember why the founders of our country viewed the right to own guns as fundamental. Of course, they knew the importance of firearms for hunting-not just for sport but for suppling food for the family. They also knew that, in a largely frontier society, guns were vital for self-defense against common criminals who were a constant threat to the safety and survival of law-abiding citizens.” (emphasis added.)
  
  
•  “Today, these same arguments are presented in support of preserving the rights of gun ownership, and properly so as they are valid arguments. However, for the Founding Fathers, neither of these arguments was the overriding reason in favor of an armed citizenry. For them, the most important reason for gun ownership was political – that is, armed citizens constituted an effective hedge against tyrants." (emphasis added.)

Biden then flip-flopped in the late 1980s, with legislative efforts falsely claiming to address violent crime. He succeeded in 1994 with “the crime bill” passed by Congress. It banned large capacity magazines and “assault” weapons” (more properly called “Modern Sporting Rifles”).  It automatically expired in 2004 without a renewal vote.

Then-Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said in a statement that the ban "provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

          Sunday, February 14, 2021, marked three years since a former student opened fire on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others. In a statement on February 14, 2021, President Biden:

•     Hinted he would take executive action to attack guns
•     Urged Congress to step up the pace of authoring anti-gun legislation
•     And publicly called for a gun registry, as well as gun & magazine ban

    Biden issued the following statement on February 15, 2021:

          “This administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our street. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

          After the Parkland shooting, many students and family members called for stricter gun control laws. But not all of them. One of the exceptions was Andrew Pollack whose daughter Meadow was killed inside the school. He claimed the school’s liberal policies on student discipline had contributed to his daughter’s death.

     According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Pollack said:

•  “After my daughter’s murder, the media didn’t seem interested in the facts. So, I found them myself. I learned that gun control laws didn’t fail my daughter. People did.”  Pollack blamed “far-left Democrats in our school district” for adopting insufficiently harsh disciplinary measures to catch previous red flags about the gunman, a troubled former student.
  
  
• “I was just fine with the old approach to discipline and safety — it was called discipline and safety,” Pollack said, criticizing the school’s “restorative justice” policy. “But the Obama-Biden administration took Parkland’s bad policies and forced them into schools across America.” He praised President Trump for ending support for those policies and told listeners, “Their children’s safety depended on Trump being reelected.”     

“Pollack was angered by the media’s close focus on gun policy rather than on other factors leading up to the shooting.”

Pollack was also critical of the student activists who survived the massacre and then called for tighter gun control policies: “They just got famous off the death of these kids,” Pollack told The Times in 2019. “Their agenda was to get famous and spew more of their liberalism ways without looking at the facts.”

Reference Link: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-24/rnc-parkland-school-shooting-father-trump

Many of the “facts” referred to by Pollack can be found at the following reference link:https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html

NY A02175/S00065: Prohibiting the sale of Ammunition

Links to the Assembly & Senate full-text pages:  A02175 | S00065

Use the links below to contact your NYS Assembly Rep and your Senator:
NYS Assembly Member Directory | NYS Senate Member Directory

SCOPE Reply to Opinion Piece and Biden  by Tom Reynolds

Last week’s Finger Lakes Times contained an opinion piece by a representative of the League of Women Voters.  It listed their priorities and one of them was “Comprehensive Gun Reform”. 

On Valentine’s Day, President Biden sent a love letter to gun grabbers that repeated the usual radical plans to destroy the 2^nd Amendment.

SCOPE responded to the opinion piece, in 500 words below, and it would also apply to Biden’s latest misadventure.

Speaking for the League of Women Voters, Christine Hoffman stated that a League priority was to “End gun violence in America”.  SCOPE is a 2^nd Amendment defense organization and would agree with the goal but not with the method she suggests.  Most existing and proposed gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens, who are not the ones committing gun violence.  Until someone figures out how to get criminals to obey the law, their suggestion is equivalent to selling your car to stop your neighbor’s drunk driving.

Ms. Hoffman stated, “the nation needs and demands comprehensive gun reform”.  What nation?  She can’t be referring to the America that, in 2020, purchased record numbers of guns or for the record number of women who bought guns. They are hardly “demanding” more gun control.

Movies may romanticize 110 pound actresses beating up linebacker-size guys, but that is fantasy.  Women are at a significant physical strength disadvantage in assaults and carrying a firearm reduces or eliminates that disadvantage.   

Laws are meant to be enforced.  Yet, enacted laws against rioting, looting and arson in cities such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco -and others - were not enforced. This led to more riots, arson and killing.  The same applies to guns.  There are already enough laws against the criminal use of guns; the problem is lack of enforcement.  We don’t need more laws that only impact law abiding citizens. 

In addition to allowing rioting to continue, NY State began releasing criminals without bail in 2020.  Assemblyman William Barclay recently posted some statistics for that year: Buffalo homicides up 36%; NY City homicides up 45%; Rochester homicides up 59%; Syracuse homicides up 55%.  Is it sensible to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves in a time of rising violent crime?

Ms. Hoffman repeats a common refrain about banning “Assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  There was a nationwide ban from 1994 to 2004; it was not renewed as it was ineffective.  The FBI’s statistics on murders in 2019 further prove this point: In NY State there was only 3 murders by rifles but 119 by knives and other cutting instruments and 44 by hands and fists.  Attacking “Assault weapons” may be good propaganda but they are not the problem.  

If all legal gun sales in the USA were stopped, would that end gun violence?  President Biden has opened our borders.  If sales were stopped in the U.S., might Mexican drug cartels take advantage of open borders to expand their smuggling operations to meet criminals’ demand for guns?  Is this addressed under the LWV’s fifth priority, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”?

Defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal gun use.  Examples of successful defensive gun use are easy to research on-line. 

When police are ten minutes away, a gun provides protection at 1500 feet per second.  A gun’s presence, alone, may deter criminals.

Ms. Hoffman she describes her recommendations as “common sense”.  As my dad would say, “sayin’ it don’t make it so”.

Some Impeachment Statistics  by Tom Reynolds

The 2nd Amendment protection to “keep and bear arms” is a key part of the Constitution.  But it’s more than just the Constitution that has made America great and held us together as a nation.  Our values, beliefs and traditions were as binding as the Constitution…until lately. One tradition, that the House and Senate used to believe in, was that the will of the voters must be respected and not overturned.  Because of that, Congress rarely took meaningful action to remove elected officials.  The statistics on impeachments, removals and non-seating reinforce that the will of the voters used to be respected.

In the entire history of the U.S.A., only one Senator and no Congresspersons have ever been impeached.  (The Senator was impeached in 1797, for Treason, but he was expelled before impeachment finished.)

Four Presidential impeachments have happened, including two to the same President.  Another President would probably have been impeached but he resigned first.

The House and Senate have other means of dealing with errant legislators that are similar to impeachment:

Five Congresspersons have been expelled, but three of those five were in 1861, for siding with the Confederacy.  The other two had to be convicted of felonies in courts of law before being expelled.

Fifteen Senators have been expelled, but fourteen of those were in 1861-2, for siding with the Confederacy.  The fifteenth was the one impeached in 1797 for treason, but expelled first.  Delete the Civil War and only two Congresspersons and one Senator have ever been expelled in the history of the USA.

The House has refused to seat four elected Congresspersons, including the same person twice. (He opposed WW1 but was elected again and was not seated, again.)

The Senate has never refused to seat a Senator.

Only two Congresspersons have ever been formally threatened with expulsion but never expelled.  One beat another Congressman with a cane and resigned before expulsion (but he was subsequently reelected and seated).  The second one resigned after the House ethics committee recommended his expulsion for bribery.

Seventeen other Senators have been formally threatened with expulsion but not expelled: Six resigned; nine were not expelled; one died; and one’s term expired.

Only thirty times in American history (excluding the Civil War) has Congress tried to impeach, expel or exclude legislators or Presidents. Of those, only sixteen were either convicted or resigned.  Does this demonstrate the high moral and ethical standards of our elected officials?  Or does it reflect the American tradition that the will of the voters is not to be overturned by the legislature except in extreme and rare circumstances?  That was the tradition until Pelosi became House Speaker.

Two of the four Presidential impeachments happened under Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker.  Think about that for a moment; in the history of the U.S.A, half of all Presidential impeachments have happened under Pelosi and it was the same President.  And if preliminary signs hold true, he will be acquitted both times.

There can be no doubt that the primary Democrat purpose behind this latest impeachment is to prevent Donald Trump from running again for President in 2024.  They believe that their political beliefs allow them to overturn even the potential will of the voters.    

Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic but, apparently, she has never heard of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  Senate Democrats forgot that rule, when they were in the Senate majority, when they did away with the filibuster for most presidential appointments.  Four years later, Republicans had regained the Senate majority and “did unto them”; the Republicans expanded the no-filibuster rule to include Supreme Court nominees.  This allowed them to approve three, pro-2A, Trump nominees.  Should Republicans regain control of the House (and Senate) in 2022, will we see a new round of “do unto them” impeachments?  Apparently, the Golden Rule has an addendum, “What goes around comes around”.

There can be no doubt that Pelosi, Schumer and their cronies are anti 2nd Amendment.  This should serve as a warning to all gun owners that nothing will stand in their way; certainly not the constitutional provision that Americans have the right to, “keep and bear arms” and not American traditions, beliefs and values. Pelosi and company seem intent on doing away with the Constitution, as it was written, and its associated values.  Freedom of Speech and the right to “Keep and bear arms” are at the top of their list.  Beware of those who see the Bill of Rights as only a piece of paper and disparage the beliefs that made us great. 

Note: To fill out the impeachment list: fourteen Federal Judges and one Supreme Court Judge and one Cabinet Secretary have also been impeached.

New York State Senate Bill S-1605 would require a mental health evaluation, every time, before a firearm could be purchased, disposed of or transferred. This would turn the 2nd Amendment from a right to a permission, at the discretion of unelected appointees.

This link will go to the full-text page for the bill:  S1605

We wrote about Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s proposed bill HR 127.  You may recall that this would: license firearms; require a mental health test; require purchasing an insurance policy for $800; ban sales to those under 21; ban 50 caliber ammunition and magazines of more than 10 rounds.  It is appropriate to review Jackson Lee’s personal expertise on firearms that allowed her to introduce this mammoth gun control bill.  (As well as her expertise on anything else.)

In a widely available video, she claims to have had an AR15 in her hands and “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving.  And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber.”  (As most SCOPE members probably know, a loaded AR-15 weighs about 7-9 pounds and does not fire .50 caliber rounds.  Do ten loaded moving boxes weigh less than a pound, each?)

After a November 2018 shooting in Thousand Oaks California, she said, ”…this is the 307th mass shooting event of the calendar year”.   (Per the FBI’s report on Active Shooter incidents, “The FBI has designated 27 shootings in 2018 as active shooter incidents.” The report defines an active shooter as, “… one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area”.) 

She has also said that each day, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually. (Ignoring that the majority of these are suicides and victims of drug gangs in our Democrat-controlled cities.)

In a speech before Congress on November 7, 2017, she assured Congress that mass shootings were not because of people with mental health problems but because of guns.  (Did the guns have mental health problems?  Why is her new bill HR127 requiring mental health exams for gun owners if it’s not a problem?)

She is widely reported as claiming that there have been zero mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years.  (What is the definition of “stopped”?  Stopped is not the same as “prevented”.  If someone shoots a potential mass shooter before they begin, technically a mass shooting never took place and one can’t definitively claim it was stopped - but it was definitely prevented.  But if a mass shooting is underway and then stopped by an armed civilian, technically the mass shooting was stopped and further loss of life was prevented; so, she is absolutely wrong.  The FBI has an extensive list of mass shootings that were underway but stopped by civilians.)

Jackson Lee has problems with more than just information on guns.  History seems to also be a significant challenge. 

In 2010, she said, “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South”.  (South Vietnam has not existed since 1975.) 

In March 2014, she said, “…how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a constitution…”  (This would date the Constitution – approved in 1789 - back to the Pilgrims.  How did George Washington – who was not born until 1732 – manage to become the 1^st President more than 100 years before he was born?)

In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked, “Will the Mars rover be able to show the flag the astronauts planted there before”.  She was then a member of the House Science Committee. 

In 2010 Jackson Lee said that the Klansmen of the past are now Tea Party members. She then criticized Tea Partiers for saying “her braids in her hair were too tight”.  (Tea Partiers do have a way with words.)

While speaking at a memorial service for singer Michael Jackson, she held up a copy of her House Resolution 600, which she introduced to honor Michael Jackson. (Her resolution didn’t get enacted.  Few members of Congress were eager to mourn a man with a history of allegations of sexual predation on young boys.)

She is a 14 term Congresswoman from Houston, has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Yale and a law degree for the University of Virginia.  They must all be proud!

S2844 and A930  By Bob Brannan NY Senate bill S2844 and its companion NY Assembly bill A930 are currently in their respective committees and, as they may see movement forward, we need to be proactive in calling our representatives in the Assembly and in the Senate to express our opposition.  You should have, when you call, the bill numbers and a brief description. Essentially this bill authorizes the State Police to set up a bureau, financed by a fee you will have to pay.  All federal NICS checks would have to go through this NY State Police Bureau instead of directly to the FBI, as has been the procedure.  The NICS check acts on a “shall issue” basis while this NY State bureau could covertly serve its political masters and become a “may issue” basis.  Can anyone see the increased possibility of bureaucratic delay, either intentional or unintentional?  As a hint to the answer: if a NICS check has no response within 3 days, the sale may proceed; under this NY State law, the time period until the sale may proceed is lengthened to 30 days. If you are denied permission to purchase a gun, you must appeal within 30 days.  But there is no time limit on NY State’s response to the appeal!  A denial could become an indefinite denial. While this bureau was authorized in the “Safe Act”, it was never funded. This bill finances it with your fees.  The wording in this bill states that the fees charged shall not exceed the amount of the costs to run the bureau.  (And, of course, government bureaus are known for their efficiency and cost effectiveness.)  While this bureau is set up to work on gun purchases, it could be easily expanded to cover the purchase of ammo. Currently, the FBI does not charge for a NICS check.  This bill will require a Federal Firearms Licensee to pay NY State (amount currently unknown) for the background check.  Then, the dealer will directly or indirectly charge the customer.  As with all taxes, you eventually pay them. In the end we will be funding NY’s efforts to limit guns/ammo by creating more costs, roadblocks, paperwork and regulations to infringe on our constitutional rights. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a federal law that makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties most firearms directly to their owner.   Can we expect this new NY State bureau to obey the law?  These are the same folks who want to legalize pot and sports gambling (while increasing funding efforts against those addictions).  They let felons out of jail and ignore crime if committed for “approved” reasons.  We must be proactive...or else!

The links below will bring up the bills we are referring to.  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a930 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s2844 *On the right side of the screen is a box asking if you support this bill. * Please click on “nay”.

Take Action Today!  - Jim Krywalski, Allegany SCOPE Chapter Chairman

Allegany County’s SCOPE Chapter sends this warning and call to action to all defenders of the 2^nd Amendment.

For those that don’t believe they need to get involved in 2^nd Amendment defense, since they believe it does not affect them, guess what, they are coming after you, too.  NY State Senate Bill S1605 Requires a Mental Health Evaluation to Buy Firearms

Legislation pre-filed in the New York State Senate by State Senator James Sanders (D-10th Senate District) will require anyone wishing to purchase a firearm to first pass a mental health evaluation. Senate Bill 1605 has been referred to Committee where it awaits a hearing.

Contact your state senators and ask them to OPPOSE Senate Bill S1605.
Find your Senator Here
Current New York law requires purchases to go through a licensed Federal Firearms Licensee and passing a federal background (NICS) check to transfer any firearm.

NY State Senate District Map

S1605 would require the mental health check prior to initiating the background check.  The implementation of a mental health evaluation for firearm transfers constitutes unprecedented government regulation and overreach. The mental health requirement would even apply to a father giving a treasured firearm to his son or daughter.

Violators of the new law would face non-violent Class D felony charges and up to 7 years in prison. For comparison, some other Class D felonies in New York include robbery, burglary and vehicular manslaughter. If you are convicted of any felony, you lose your right to own a firearm and your right to vote.

Are you a hunter who doesn’t believe the gun grabbing will affect you? Are you a member of a Rod & Gun Club who doesn’t want to talk politics?  Jacob Hupp, the Associate Director of State Services for the Sportsmen’s Alliance said, “In addition to the clear violation of second amendment rights, this legislation unfairly targets the hunting and sport shooting community by creating barriers that limit access to the outdoors.   As it becomes more difficult to legally obtain a firearm in New York, it also becomes more difficult to drive participation in hunting and shooting sports.”

To read the full bill S1605:  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s1605

Thirteen term Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was born in NY City and she did not lose any of her extremist leftist roots when she moved to Houston.  Her first act in the 2021 Congress was to (again) introduce a reparations bill, HR40.  Her next act was to (again) introduce a sweeping gun control bill, HR127.  Both are regurgitations of her earlier attempts but with Democrat control in Washington, gun owners can’t take continued lack of action for granted.

HR 127 requires the Attorney General to, “…establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration (of)…each firearm present in the United States”.  The license will have to be periodically renewed.  The bill includes notifying the government if you loan the firearm to anyone for “any period of time” (and that person will also need a license). 

That’s right, this is a federal firearms licensing bill and this one is on steroids.

To all those gun owners who have been saying that gun control isn’t an issue for them, the bill covers all guns, whether currently owned or new purchases.  That’s right, all estimated 25 million current firearm owners in the USA and any new ones! 

There would be three types of licenses: Antique, General and Military. 

Antique firearms will require a license and there is no differentiation in the bill between operable and inoperable.  There will be government regulations on how the antique is to be displayed and the owner must certify compliance.  It also requires that the owner has “…provided for storage of the firearm in a safe or facility approved by the Attorney General for the storage of firearms.”  (The bill does not explain how the owner will safe storage an inoperable firearm and display it at the same time.)

General and Military Firearms Licenses will require:

• the owner to be 21 years old, even though you can vote, drink and join the military at 18.  The Attorney General will probably need a picture ID although that isn’t in the bill. 
• the owner to also have an insurance policy issued by the government with an $800 annual premium.  (That’s right, $800 per year.) It is not clear if this is $800 per firearm or not.
• the owner will also undergo a psychological exam by a licensed psychologist. And if the psychologist requires:

          - a psychological examination of other members of the owner’s household;

       - an interview of any spouse, ex-spouse, two other members of the owner’s household or associates “to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms”. 

All psychological exams at the owner’s expense, of course.  (Just hope you don’t get an anti-gun psychologist doing the testing.)  You will not get a license if you have been hospitalized with any mental disturbance or depression or if the psychologist determines you have a mental disturbance or addiction.

Military Firearms includes an expanded list beyond the usual Assault Weapons plus some semi-automatic pistols and some shotguns.

The bill also prohibits ammunition of 50 caliber or greater and ammunition feeders with more than ten rounds capacity.

As to the penalties, don’t ask.  You can’t afford the amount of the fine or the jail time.  You would be better off being a serial rapist or defrauding people of their life savings in a Ponzi Scheme.

25 million gun owners times $800 insurance premium equals $20 billion in government revenue, per year. 

You will have three (3) months to comply.    Better make your appointment for a psychological exam now because there is going to be a 25 million person long line. 

This bill should never come to a vote but in the present Congress, who knows?  If it ever became law, the Supreme Court would probably find it unconstitutional thanks to President Trump’s appointees.  (Just imagine if they were Hillary or Biden appointees?)  But if the “court packing” schemes of the left come to fruition…  Of course, challenging this all the way to the Supreme Court will require a million dollars – at least.  That might be cheap for someone with a firearm collection. 

If someone doesn’t know what I am referring to in the above paragraph and they are a gun owner, explain it before all hell breaks loose. To hunters and Rod & Gun Club members and other gun owners who don’t want to be involved with politics, Sheila Jackson Lee and the leftists gun grabbers do want to be involved with politics and that allows them to make the laws.  When you cede them the battle without a fight, the whole Constitution – not just 2A - loses

Contact your Congressperson and let them know how strongly you oppose this bill. If you happen to have a Democrat Congressperson, tell them you do not appreciate a party that tolerates these types of unconstitutional bills.

The 2^nd Amendment only lasts as long as the Constitution exists, in its original meaning.  The Constitution sets out strict limits on the government, not on citizens and it protects our rights against government intrusion.  Those that would attack 2A know that weakening any part of the Constitution weakens it all.  “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” and that means protecting all of our beloved Constitution.

Whether or not you like Donald Trump, the current impeachment effort is an attempt to undermine the Constitution.  What is being used against him can be used against others. The goal is to take the presidential ballot away from citizens by making a specific citizen ineligible - for political reasons.  It would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious.

Article 1 Section 3 of the United States’ Constitution says, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice will preside”.  Chief Justice Roberts lobbed a grenade when he decided not to preside over the impeachment of Donald Trump, who is currently a private citizen. 

Is it legal to have a presidential impeachment trial without the Chief Justice?  The Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside over a Presidential impeachment.  By passing, Roberts is, in effect, agreeing that the President is not on trial; a private citizen is on trial. 

Private citizens cannot be tried by the Senate under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No Bill of Attainder…shall be passed”. (A Bill of Attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person or a group of persons guilty of a crime.)  It is outlawed because it deprives the person of the safeguards connected with a trial by jury, which is guaranteed by several parts of the “The Bill of Rights”.  (The founding fathers had this “thing” about rights when they wrote both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.)   

Bills of Attainder are also outlawed because the judicial system is supposed to be impartial but the Senate is a political body with no pretext of impartiality.  The Chief Justice was supposed to preside to create some fairness.  If a trial does happen without the Chief Justice, shouldn’t the President of the Senate preside?  That happens to be Vice President Kamala Harris.  Even the Democrats saw that as a conflict of interest and kicked the job down to the President pro-tempore of the Senate; that’s Patrick Leahy, the 46 years-in-office, Democrat Senator from Vermont. 

When a presiding judge has a “conflict of interest” he is expected to withdraw.  Before he was named to preside, on January 13^th Leahy said,

“President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation.” 

“He sparked the flames of sedition and has fanned them relentlessly. For months he has lied about the election in an effort to undermine Americans’ faith in our democracy. He has promoted division, disruption, and violence. He has attempted to thwart our nation’s unbroken history of a constitutional and peaceful transfer of power. And he has incited and promoted a riot that laid siege to our Capitol building — the very heart of our democracy. Insurrectionists chanting his name… President Trump bears responsibility for this attack...The fact that he has disavowed any responsibility for the violent assault on our democracy makes clear that he is unworthy of public trust, unworthy of the office he holds, and must be removed.”

Any prejudging, unfairness or bias in that statement?  And I love the part of “insurrectionists chanting his name”.  Is it a crime to have someone else chant your name?    

Whether you like Trump or not, what matters are principles, the Constitution, and the rule-of-law.  The unconstitutionality of this should set heads spinning.  You recently heard about the peaceful transfer of power on January 20th but we look like a banana republic, when a new government puts the old government on trial.  Doubt that?  Have you noticed that our capital city, Washington D.C. is now a military occupation zone?

As was pointed out Monday, it doesn’t seem to bother today’s politicians - once they have power - that an impeachment trial would violate several parts of the Constitution; that’s just another constitutional complication to be ignored.

Think of the interesting possibilities.  Open this door and the next question is, does an ex-president have to be alive to be impeached?  Could Tom Jefferson be impeached for being a slave holder – even though it was legal then?  Franklin Roosevelt definitely qualified for impeachment for putting the Japanese in internment camps (which was aided and abetted by future Chief Justice Earl Warren; doesn’t that raise interesting possibilities.)  Could Obama be impeached for lying about Obamacare?  There is a precedent for this in English history; two years after his death, after political power changed hands, Oliver Cromwell’s body was dug up, hung in chains and then beheaded.

Forget pandemics, the economy and unemployment, there is “virtue signaling” to be had.  Congress does have its priorities and none seem to align with the citizens’ priorities.

On the other hand, if they are busy with impeachment, the Senate can’t take time to attack the 2^nd Amendment.  If the only issue were 2A and not pandemics, the economy, etc., we would hope to keep the Senate busy with a two years long trial.