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.

The rest of the story  by Tom Reynolds

You may have read that, about a week ago, the US Capitol Police arrested a man after officers found an unregistered gun and 500 rounds of ammunition in his vehicle when he attempted to use an “unauthorized” inaugural credential at a security checkpoint. That sounds like a real threat, doesn’t it? Guns. Ammo. Fake ID. Made headlines - but there was almost no follow up.

Here is what happened. The arrest occurred after Wesley Beeler was stopped at a security checkpoint, roughly half a mile away from the Capitol. Beeler attempted to pass through the checkpoint using an unauthorized inauguration credential. His truck also reportedly had multiple gun-related bumper decals. After police stopped him, they searched his car and found a handgun, (Beeler told them it was there), as well as 509 rounds of handgun ammunition and 21 shotgun shells. The gun was not registered in DC, according to NBC Washington; in the District, possession of an unregistered firearm is illegal and subject to penalty. Reportedly, Beeler is a registered gun owner in Virginia. He is facing multiple firearms related charges in D.C.

Beeler said that he was merely on his way to work and that his arrest was caused by what he called an “honest mistake.” “I pulled up to a checkpoint after getting lost in DC because I’m a country boy. I showed them the inauguration badge that was given to me,” Beeler said, adding, “I don’t know what the DC laws are. It still comes back on me, but I’m not a criminal.”

An anonymous federal law enforcement official said Beeler was a contractor and that his credential was not fake, according to a newspaper report. Beeler was authorized to have a firearm for his security work, but the gun was not registered in Washington, DC. After his release Saturday, Beeler told the Washington Post that he neglected to take his firearm out of his vehicle because he had been running late for work; he also said he works with MVP Protective Services and that the company gave him the inauguration credentials that Capitol Police rejected.

We recently wrote about proposed bill, HR 38, which would require national reciprocity for concealed carry. While it has no chance of passing, if Beeler’s story is true, this is a great example of why it is needed.

Facebook strikes again

The Saturday before the inauguration, Facebook announced,

“We are banning ads that promote weapon accessories and protective equipment in the US at least through January 22, out of an abundance of caution. We already prohibit ads for weapons, ammunition and weapon enhancements like silencers. But we will now also prohibit ads for accessories such as gun safes, vests and gun holsters in the US”.

Reportedly, this came about because of complaints from Senators and Facebook employees. The temporary ban is said to remain in effect until at least January 22nd.

After a year in which more than 21 million NICS checks were conducted and an estimated 8.4 million people purchased a firearm for the first time, apparently “safe storage” is an inaugural security issue.

Inauguration violence

Did you see all the right-wing, gun carrying, white supremacist, extremist violence in Washington and state capitols at Wednesday’s inauguration? In case you missed it, the following are pictures of that violence.

Quite a difference from four years ago when Democrats tried to burn DC down.

We would like to show the pictures of the Antifa Violence that did occur in Portland and Seattle on Wednesday but, somehow, the media seems to have missed it.

Vetting vets

It’s reported that the FBI vetted the National Guard Troops for extremist ties. Just like they vetted troops for another type of extremist after the Fort Hood Shooting? A good chance to rid the military of those who might take their oath seriously. Like refusing unlawful orders to disarm American citizens - if that order ever were to happen?

Congressional Intelligence  by Tom Reynolds

Colorado’s Diana DeGette, in her 13th term in Congress, has been appointed as a House Impeachment Manager.

In April 2013, DeGette was asked why she wanted to ban high-capacity magazines.  First, she described them as “magazine clips”.  Then she said, “These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” 

Remember, she was being asked about the efficacy of banning high-capacity magazines.  Apparently, DeGette’s expertise on guns does not include knowing that magazine are not clips, that magazines are not ammunition and that magazines can be reloaded with more bullets and reused multiple times.

To help spin that response, a DeGette spokeswoman issued a statement, “The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.” 

So, she “has been working on a high-capacity magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue”.  So deeply involved that she does not know that clips can be reused as well.  And remember, her staff would have vetted her remarks and apparently none of them knew what they are talking about, either.

In March of 2010, Admiral Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, was testifying before a congressional committee on stationing an addition 8,000 Marines on the island of Guam.

Eight term Congressman Hank Johnson commented, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize”. 

Willard was able to maintain a straight face when he assured Johnson that Guam would not sink.

Five Term Congressman Eric Swalwell has been appointed a House Impeachment Manager.  An alleged Chinese spy, who has fled back to China, was a fund raiser for Swalwell, placed an intern in his office and had a multi-year affair with him (and other politicians.) 

Nancy Pelosi also appointed Swalwell to Homeland Security Committees. (If you are an American spy in China, don’t you feel comfortable that Swalwell and Pelosi have your back?)

Six term Senator Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for nearly two decades as her chauffeur, a gofer in her office and a liaison to the Asian American community.  (He certainly was successful in the latter duty.)

Feinstein’s office said she was mortified but refused other comment.  Why should she comment?  The NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post didn’t bother covering the story.

Armed Rallies  by Tom Reynolds

You have probably seen stories that anticipate “Armed Rallies” at state capitols and in D.C. on January 20^th.   SCOPE is not aware of any reputable 2^nd Amendment organization – including SCOPE – that is behind the calls for these rallies.  However, a heightened awareness of them is being promoted by media outlets. 

Who organized these rallies and what is to be gained?

The rally organizers, referenced by the FBI as behind this, are usually identified as “on line chatter”.  Articles and the flyers that have been cited in news stories never seem to identify the author(s).

The only direct reference we have seen is that on November 24^th, a group called “Boogaloo” called for protests and said people could “…come armed at their personal discretion”. (The Anti-Defamation League describes Boogaloo as “primarily anti-government, anti-authority and anti-police in nature.” Which sounds a lot like those who rioted all last summer.) 

Another story identified “several followers of a militant anti-government movement”.  It didn’t identify the group and it was not the movement itself that was identified but “several followers”.         

The call for “Armed” rallies is unusual.  Rally organizers, including 2A organizations, generally use terms such as “Peaceful” rallies and “Protests”. The option to come legally armed is always there, as it is for any rally by any organization, but generally left unspoken

There is also the tendency, especially amongst the left, to interpret “Armed” rally as “Violent” rally.  Certainly, that is the reaction of the media, in this case, and also the reaction of the government.  Including “Armed” certainly sets the stage for inferring that they will be violent. 

Some media outlets like the Associated Press (AP) are writing articles unfairly blaming President Trump, in advance and without any facts, for violence that has not happened and may never happen. 

A non-gun owner may jump on the word “Armed” to condemn gun owners and link it to a gun rights group such as the NRA, again with no factual proof. 

We must also recognize the potential for our elected officials to introduce unwarranted legislation following the prediction of a nonexistent “emergency”.

Many people, including 2A defenders, have serious concerns about fraud in the November election and announced policies by the Biden administration may provide legitimate reasons to protest against encroachments on their civil and Constitutional liberties.  We all reserve the right to peacefully protest, as protected by our 1^st Amendment.

Again, SCOPE is not aware of any reputable 2A organization – including SCOPE – promoting armed rallies and certainly not violent ones.  Each protest participant should know and trust the organizing entity.  Individual attendance at any protest or rally is the decision of the individual but these look very suspicious and we would not recommend attendance.  There will be many other opportunities to protests that do not come with the downside potential attached to this one. 

H R 38 – Nice But Meaningless  by Tom Reynolds

H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, has been reintroduced by Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC).  It would recognize the right of travelers to carry in states, other than their own, that have lawful concealed carry for its own state’s residents.  Under this federal law, travelers would be able to lawfully possess and receive a firearm.  To do so, travelers would need to carry photographic identification issued by the U.S. or a state government and have a concealed carry permit and reside in a state that provides for lawful concealed carry.  Prohibited places for firearms or concealed carry would still have to be obeyed. Private property owners would maintain discretion over whether or to what degree concealed carry was authorized on their property.

If you have a New York Concealed Carry permit, this would allow you to carry in other states. 

Before you get too excited…In an anti-gun, Democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency, the chance of this passing is virtually nil; this is a token political effort.  

When Republicans are taking a bow for this, they need to be asked, “What is the strategy to get an anti-gun, Democrat controlled Congress to pass this and to get an anti-gun Democrat President to sign it”? 

When Republicans regain control, (and eventually they will) they need to be asked, “Hey, you introduced this when it was meaningless. Now are you going to do something that counts”?

By the way, this is not just a Republican strategy to do this.  Democrats are equally adept.

- Upcoming Firing Lines

SCOPE looks to work with like-minded organizations in support of the Constitution and 2^nd Amendment.  Toward that end, we are pleased to announce that we will be working with Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.  Their web site is https:/DRGO.us.  More detail about this organization will be in the upcoming Firing Lines.

Also in the Firing Lines will be an article by a nurse who ran afoul of the SAFE Act and her long and difficult struggle to correct erroneous reporting.   It could happen to you!

The Corona Virus lockdowns will be affecting our Annual Members Meeting.  More information about this in the Firing Lines:  https://www.scopeny2a.org/newsletters

The 25^th and Impeachment  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE’s purpose is to defend the Constitution with an emphasis on the 2^nd Amendment.  There is a lot going on with the Constitution that will eventually affect the 2^nd Amendment. 

Perspective is often lacking in political debates.  The media is running on amped up emotion with calls to end Trump’s presidency, prematurely.  Let’s take a moment and add some perspective.

Pelosi and Schumer are leading the charge to invoke the 25^th Amendment to remove the President. There are several problems with this;

As currently constituted, the Vice President, Mike Pence, must lead this effort.  Pence says he will not do it.  End of conversation?

If Pence did do this, Trump would only have to officially say he is able to do his duty and he resumes the Presidency.  The VP and Cabinet could try again and then it goes to Congress to decide, meeting within 48 hours.  It then takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to find the President disabled.  Even if successful, Pence would only be the Acting President for the remainder of the term.  (That’s what the Constitution says, not what you’re hearing from the media.)

The Constitution says the President must be unable to perform the duties of the office.  The 25^th as well as Article II Section 1 of the Constitution clearly state “inability”.  There is no doubt that this term meant disability and not dislike of his actions. It would be an unconstitutional “coup” to do this over dislike of a Presidents’ actions.  (That’s called a Banana Republic, which is definitely not in the United States Constitution.)  

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were familiar with the Constitution, and there is grave doubt that they have ever read it, they would know that calling for the 25^th is, in this instance, only political posturing.  Political posturing with the United States at stake?  Say it aint so, Nancy, say it aint so!

Lacking the 25^th, now Pelosi and Schumer aim at Impeachment (again).  And again, there are some issues worth exploring.  Primarily, the process takes time and there is only a week and a half left in Trump’s term. 

Why try it with such little time remaining?

Some Democrats scream that Trump might start a nuclear war.  Yeah, right!  It’s more likely Nancy Pelosi will resign from office, give all her hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor and become a Nun. 

Do they want to tar Trump as the only President to be impeached twice?  Which also means he could be the only President to be acquitted twice.  (Remember, it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict.)

With the short time available, there likely is not enough time to hold the trial before January 20^th.  But there is one precedent for holding an impeachment trial after leaving office: In 1876 the Secretary of War’s impeachment trial happened after he left office.  (He was acquitted.)

Would they hold an impeachment trial after January 20th?  Why?  Trump is already out of office and the purpose of impeachment is remove him from office.  Well, not quite.  There is another aspect to impeachment.

Trump has threatened to run in 2024 and 74 million people voted for him this time around.  But if convicted of impeachment, the Constitution says that he would be disqualified, “… to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”  He couldn’t run in 2024.  If Trump fraudulently lost the 2020 election, are the Democrats afraid that he would be elected in an honest election?  (Grover Cleveland did this split term presidencies and Trump would be Biden’s current age in 2024.)  Is Pelosi’s and Schumer’s real purpose to deny the American people the opportunity to choose their own President?  The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions come down hard to preserve the right of the people to choose their elected officials.

Let’s speculate on other possible motives.  The Democrats control all the levers of federal power.  Their Socialist policies have never worked while Trump’s were successful.  If the economy is bad in 2024, do Democrats fear that people might long for the good old Trump days? 

In politics and life, what goes around comes around.  The charges against Trump would be some version of “Inciting riot”.  In 2022, the Democrats could easily lose control of both the House and the Senate.  Kamala Harris would still be the Vice President. Last year, during the height of riots that caused a dozen deaths and billions in damages, she said those riots should “…not end.”  (This is not taking her words out of context, she really said and meant that.)  Sounds a lot like “Inciting riot”.  If it applies to Republican Presidents it surely applies to Democrat Vice Presidents.

But most importantly, and something which is being completely overlooked, the Constitution is based on the Separation of Powers.  Each branch of government has its own powers and the other branches are not allowed to intrude on those powers.  One branch may not like what the other branch says and does but they are bound, under their oath to uphold the Constitution, not to intrude on those powers.  The Democrats have already tried to break down this constitutional barrier with the first Trump impeachment, which was a trial without a crime. 

First of all, they shouldn’t attack one of the centerpieces of our Constitution, Separation of Powers.  Second, what goes around comes around.  A Republican House and Senate with Joe Biden as President in 2022 might like the precedent set by the Democrats, and even expand upon it.  That of course would not be good for the United States but if politicians always did what was good for the United States we would not be in this situation.

Pelosi and Schumer don’t seem to realize that the United States is not a parliamentary republic and impeachment is not a parliamentary “vote of confidence” but they seem to want to treat it as a “vote of confidence”.

With an epidemic, a recession and a change in administrations happening, don’t Pelosi and Schumer have something better to do with their time?

Thoughts on Yesterday  by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday, I heard that the DC protesters had invaded the Capitol Building so I turned on TV.  There were videos of looting, burning, graffiti, people screaming in police officers’ faces, Molotov Cocktails, cars and dumpsters being burned…oh wait…that was a rerun of a Black Lives Matter / Antifa riot from this past summer.  Yesterday was nothing like that although equally inexcusable.

To many of us, the history, values and traditions of the United States are sacred.  It was saddening to see videos of the Capitol Building being treated with such disrespect.  It was especially saddening if it was being done by people who believe strongly in those same values and traditions that the Capitol represents. We can hope that, if there is a real investigation, we will find out that it was outside agitators - whose only purpose was to create the chaos - that sparked this.  We have come to expect – but not excuse - yesterday’s events from the radical left but it should never come from those on the right.

Earlier this week, A pro-Second Amendment Congresswoman was widely criticized in the media for wanting to exercise her right to bear arms in the capitol.  We were told that she didn’t need a handgun for protection because the building was secure.  Yet, thousands of protesters stormed the building and overran security.  Thankfully, she did not need to use her firearm.  These events demonstrate that none of us can be sure we can count on the police as our exclusive means of protection.  

A Congressman commented about the anger and said that, by contrast, House members can disagree but, in the end, they are friends.  He doesn’t understand that his left-wing radical “friends” are trying to destroy the United States Constitution and our 2A rights.  “We the people” obviously take that a lot more personally than some Congressmen do. 

One message the protesters were sending  – that those inside the D.C. beltway need to understand - is that the left can’t keep pushing and pushing and expect there will never be a reaction.  If they would start to understand that and react accordingly, the tensions would begin to drop.  Yesterday was a warning against unintended consequences.

A Christmas To Remember by Tom Reynolds

After a devastating defeat in New York City, where surrendering Continental soldiers were bayoneted to death by Hessians, George Washington led his army in a retreat through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania.  At Valley Forge, Washington set up a winter camp and pondered his next move.  The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments; not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area.  Many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months.  Food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up but, certainly, some of his top generals must have contemplated getting the best possible terms from the British and surrendering.

Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

In the early evening of December 25, 1776, the Continental Army loaded onto boats, in a freezing rain storm that lasted all night.  They crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups; one group did not make it across and while a second group did make it across, it turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, they arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.  Officers reported that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

While the enemy was yawning and waking up, they were suddenly attacked.  The Continental Army, in rags with long hair and matted beards all coated in rain and mud, came screaming down on the Hessians; it must have looked to the Hessians like the army-from-hell had come from the depths to kill them.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

There would be another winter of deprivation at Valley Forge and a worse winter at Morristown in 1779-80; that was the coldest winter in 400 years.  But in 1776, in what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today: we’re Americans; beware; we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our enemies. 

Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the results of this past November’s election.  Morale is cratering.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  If you didn’t take that oath, it’s no too late to commit yourself to that principle. 

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman”.

Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism?  Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? 

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered, but…the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph”.  Did anyone believe that the Socialist lust for power would just go away and die when confronted?  Did people believe that Donald Trump could take on the entire Washington swamp by himself?

            When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.

Enjoy the holidays.  Reenergize and decide whether or not you are a “sunshine soldier” and will surrender to A O-C or if you are willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family.  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

Merry Christmas from SCOPE.  Stay safe.  Enjoy your family and friends.     

Gun Violence As A Health Crisis by Tom Reynolds

We know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as their administration and the Democrat leadership, are all anti 2^nd Amendment.  We tend to focus on ways they can directly attack 2A but their indirect actions are just as dangerous to constitutional rights -and perhaps more deadly since they go unnoticed until too late.

In the name of a national health emergency, Democrat governors and mayors have attacked several rights safeguarded under the Constitution and Biden has pledged to do likewise in the name of “Listening to the medical experts”.  They experimented to see if there would be any limits to their power if they told Americans their health was at stake and the government knew best how to protect them.  They found out that their power has few limits when they make it a health issue. 

If it works against other rights, why not attack 2A as a health crisis?

Start with Biden’s nominee for Surgeon General.  Surgeon Generals are supposed to be dedicated doctors and not political hacks in search of power.  Right?  Biden nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy to reprise the role he filled as U.S. Surgeon General during the Obama administration.  (When you hear that someone was an Obama appointee, the hairs on the back of your neck should be standing on end.)  During the Obama administration, Murthy tried to have gun violence treated as a public health issue.

Then add an anti-2A Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Enter California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra as Biden’s pick to lead HHS.  (Becerra’s predecessor as Attorney General in California was…Kamala Harris.) Trump appointed a leading pediatric surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, as his HHS Secretary.  Becerra’s health care experience is limited to being in favor of abortion.  (But he can always seek advice from Dr. Jill Biden.  Sarcasm intended.)

Becerra spent the past few years defending his far-left state’s strict gun laws, such as California’s ban on military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.  Oh yeah, before becoming California’s Attorney General, he represented uber left-wing Los Angeles in Congress, where the NRA rated him “F”.

With the resources of a trillion dollar agency to pick from, Becerra will have little trouble finding money to research gun violence as a public health issue.  Since researchers know that results favorable to those funding the research is the way to keep money flowing, it is certain that the “experts” will find that increased gun control is the answer to gun violence.

Becerra does have one obstacle, the 1996 “Dickey Amendment” that reads, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”  But if Democrats win both Georgia Senate elections, expect “Dickey” to be a dead duck.

Given the opportunity, Biden and his minions will talk about gun violence as a national health crisis. Remember, Biden has pledged to listen to the medical experts on Covid, so it would be easy for him say he is listening to the medical “experts” on gun violence as the rationale for fulfilling his campaign promises to attack 2A.   

Attacking 2A through health and medical channels is being tried by others, too.  Bills were introduced in 2020 in both the New York Assembly and Senate to require a mental health exam in order to buy a firearm.

The entrance to Hitler’s concentration camp at Dachau had the sign, “Arbeit macht frei” (Work sets you free.)  Biden’s concentration camp for the Bill of Rights will say “Listen to the medical experts”.