Let’s Pass Another Law – What Harm can It Do? by Tom Reynolds

Beware of seemingly harmless laws.  Activist governments can twist anything into something it was never meant to be.  Laws are out there, lurking like Freddy in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies.

Under the so called “Charleston Loophole”, if a NICS check takes more than 3 days, the gun sale may proceed.  Biden and Kamala Harris want to close the “Loophole” at the federal level.  Given that the federal level also controls the NICS checks and if the 3 day rule is changed, as President they could slow down the approval process and put many gun stores out of business.  (New York closed the “Loophole” but the federal government controls NICS checks – not NY State – so Cuomo cannot slow down the process.  Does anyone doubt what he would do if he did have that power?)  Closing the “Loophole” sounds attractive to some voters, but it would be too easily abused by gun control activists like Biden, Harris and Cuomo.

Since the anti-gun left never stops trying, here’s an arrow they would like to have in their quiver.  Suppose Congress passed legislation funding HUD and included that “States and municipalities must make positive efforts to curb violence or be ineligible for HUD funding”?  Sounds like a good thing with all the riots and such.  But, an Obama-like administration could interpret it to mean that states and municipalities must proactively push gun control as a means of curbing violence.  No gun control means no federal dollars.  The federal government could withhold money for street and bridge maintenance if the state and local authorities did not implement stringent gun controls.

Sounds far-fetched?  The HUD program called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) proves this point and, besides, it’s a program you should really be aware of even though it’s not about 2A. 

Almost half a century after it was enacted, Obama’s HUD “discovered” a brief mention in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and created AFFH, which calls for “diversity” in all levels of housing in suburbs.  Towns and suburbs are obligated to “do more than simply not discriminate”.  They have to make it possible for low-income minorities to choose suburban living and the towns must also provide “adequate support to make their choices possible.” AFFH’s plan included building high-density housing in low density suburban neighborhoods, (goodbye local zoning laws).  Suburbs would have to look like the city they surround or lose federal aid.  Under this program, suburbs are viewed as fundamentally unjust communities because they prevent taxation from flowing into the urban cities they surround.  Suburbanites are selfishly keeping their own money from less well-off people in the cities.

Don’t worry about AFFH - for now.  Clinton lost in 2016 and Trump’s HUD Secretary Ben Carson stripped away Obama's AFFH Rule.  (In response, the left-wing media played the race card.  Ignoring that Ben Carson is black.)  Joe Biden has said he will reinstitute AFFH.

What are the lessons in this for gunowners?    First, because the federal government is now funding so many local projects, the feds only need to threaten to withhold funding to trample on constitutional rights.  (The founding fathers warned about what a too powerful central government would do to individual rights.)  Second, laws are subject to misinterpretation, especially if the judiciary does not follow “original intent”.  (Amy Barrett is an “original intent” justice).  Third, charge racism – even when unfounded - and weak-kneed politicians take a knee.  Fourth, it’s not enough to be neutral, you must actively support a government program or you will be punished. 

Who knows what minor part of some federal law is sitting in obscurity waiting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to resurrect in order to attack the Second Amendment that they pledged to destroy.

The outcome of the November election will determine if AFFH is resurrected.  Oh yeah, the election will also decide if the 2^nd Amendment is alive or just the walking dead.

Okay, Enough is Enough! by Tom Reynolds

There was probably no one since George Washington who understood and practiced leadership better than Dwight Eisenhower. Forged in war and honed to a fine point in their presidencies, both Washington and Eisenhower understood the multiple dynamics of leadership. Not politics, but leadership. (There is no lack of successful politicians who are not leaders.) One of Ike’s guiding principles was that a leader had to be positive and optimistic.

Susan Eisenhower wrote about the value of optimism in a leader in How Ike Led. She said that Ike, “…understood, perhaps better than anyone else, pessimism’s corrosive impact and the negativity it can produce…”

In Crusade in Europe Ike, himself, wrote, “I firmly determined that my mannerisms and speech in public would always reflect the cheerful certainty of victory-that any pessimism and discouragement I might ever feel would be reserved for my pillow.”

In a commencement speech at Dartmouth on June 14, 1953, Ike spoke concerning problems, “You can’t solve them with long faces, they don’t solve problems-not when they deal with humans. Humans have to have confidence; you’ve got to help give it to them.”

America is going through a difficult time and we need leadership to hold us together and give us confidence that things will get better. One way is to follow Ike’s example and provide an optimistic outlook that things will get better.

Our current President is criticized because he presented a positive outlook early in the China Virus epidemic. The media would seem to have preferred that he be gloom-and-doom and that the world is ending.

Now, he is criticized for saying that we shouldn’t be afraid of the virus and to not let it dominate our lives. Would MSNBC prefer him to say that suicidal thoughts are okay in this difficult time? The media seems to feel that he set a bad example by not dying of Covid,

Can you imagine the current media’s reaction to some of Winston Churchill’s great quotes? When Britain’s defeat seemed inevitable, he said, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”. CNN would have crucified him for being inspirational instead of being transparent and telling the British how really bad the situation was.

What about liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt saying, during the depths of the Great Depression, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. At the same time, he, himself, was wondering if he would be the last president of the United States. Talk about a President who was not transparent!

Have the talking heads on TV ever read history? Or closer to the truth, have their script writers ever read history? If they did, they may have read it but they certainly did not understand it. Leaders must present a positive. optimistic outlook. As Yogi Berra would have said, if leaders say it’s over - it’s over - and you don’t have to wait for Whoopie Goldberg to sing.

In closing, one of Churchill’s lesser known quotes, but appropriate for this time is, “If you’re going through Hell - KEEP GOING”.

Friday is it!  by Tom Reynolds

If you are not registered to vote, you have only two days, until Friday the 9^th, to get registered.  Remember, if you don’t vote you don’t have a voice in the process and politicians can’t hear you.

Don’t know if you are registered?      

Go to   https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/

Mailing addresses can be found on-line  at  https://www.elections.ny.gov/COUNTYBOARDS.html

Want to go on line to register, change address or change party enrollment?         

Go to  https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MOTORVOTER

You must have a NY issued driver’s license or a non-driver ID.

Want to register by mail?

Download a registration form at   https://www.elections.ny.gov/VOTINGREGISTER.html

Mail it to your local board of elections. 

It must be postmarked by October 9^th (Friday)

Want to register in person?

Register at your county Board of elections or any NYS agency-based voter registration center. 

However, many locations are open by appointment only or with limited capacity.

Find a list at  https://www.elections.ny.gov/COUNTYBOARDS.html

Congressional Candidates’ Ratings on 2nd Amendment by Tom Reynolds

Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court has stopped the never-ending attacks by those that would disarm our citizens and whittle away at the Constitution.  It is imperative that we have political office holders who will preserve, protect and defend the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment.  Toward that end, SCOPE has rated the following candidates as an “A” and believe they will work to preserve, protect and defend our right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution. 

For the United States Congress from New York State:

District 1       Lee Zeldin

District 3       George Devolder-Santos

District 14     John Cummings

District 19     Kyle Van De Water

District 20     Liz Joy

District 21     Elise Stefanik

District 22     Claudia Tenney

District 23     Tom Reed    

District 24     John Katko

District 26     Ricky Donovan Sr

District 27     Chris Jacobs            

Note: Ratings come primarily from SCOPE chapters that are familiar with the candidate.  When those are unavailable, on line searches and the ratings of other 2A organizations are considered in rating the candidates.

Keep Your Eyes on Knife Control Rulings by Tracy Marisa

In late November, 2019, a terrorist who had used knives to murder a couple of Londoners, in broad daylight, on London Bridge, was subdued by a guy with—of all things—a narwhal tusk “liberated” from nearby Fishmongers Hall. Armed with guns, the police finished off the terrorist, but most of us would consider both the terrorist and the guy wielding the tusk to have been “armed” as well.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is not limited to guns: Back in the day, bows and bladed weapons of all sorts were considered “arms” as well as rifles, pistols, and so forth. In fact, the first forms of arms control in the U.S. were not aimed at guns but were aimed to control bayonets, swords, and other unpopular bladed weapons; because there was a long history of prohibiting such items in English common law, there was little initial resistance to such prohibitions. Folks in Merry Old England, were not in favor of people walking the streets with hatchets (but maybe not narwhal tusks).

Starting in the mid-19th century, states started expanding “arms control” by trying to ban knives of all sorts, with varying degrees of success. By the mid-20th century, fears fostered by bad movies (among other things) about juvenile delinquents armed to the teeth with switchblades led to draconian restrictions and sometimes complete bans on all sorts of knives at the state and federal levels.

But there has been pushback in recent years, and this is important to the 2^nd Amendment.  For example, in Colorado, their antiquated switchblade ban was repealed in 2017. Hawaii still has a ban on butterfly knives on the books.  However, there is a case pending, Teter v. Connors, in which an amicus brief filed by Mountain States Legal Foundation with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals argues that Hawaii’s ban violates the Second Amendment and is thus unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit, which covers the “Left Coast”, was overwhelmingly liberal until Trump started appointing justices.  It has been shifting recently toward upholding individuals’ natural, fundamental, and constitutionally protected rights. A win for knives in Teter would continue this monumental shift in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisprudence and would also reinforce the constitutional basis for the gun-rights movement.

So, a win in Teter wouldn’t just be a knife-rights victory, it would be a gun-rights victory as well. Keep your eye on this and other knife-rights cases.

Biden’s Democrat Platform on Guns by Tom Reynolds

In the presidential debate, Joe Biden said, “The party is me…Right now, I am the Democratic Party. I am the Democratic Party right now.”  Okay Joe, you own the Democrat platform.  Below is his platform as to gun control, taken directly from the Democrat platform document.   It is buried in a section called, “Healing the soul of America”.

Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence

Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence. Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

There is too much here to deal with in one email, but it deserves a few comments.

Of the 40,000 gun deaths that their platform notes, 24,000 are suicides, (which isn’t noted).  Most of those suicides will probably just find an alternate method to commit suicide.  Democrats would claim success by eliminating gun related suicides and ignore little change in the overall suicide rate.

Taken as a whole, these steps would eventually lead to no one legally owning a gun (except, of course, Democrat politicians, their friends and those protecting Democrat politicians).  In fact, gun violence by criminals would undoubtably increase since criminals don’t obey any of these laws and they would know they face disarmed citizens. (Remember Sean Connery’s famous line in the movie “The Untouchables” about bringing a knife to a gun fight.)  Biden completely ignores that these steps would eliminate legally owned guns from being used in self-defense.  Estimates on defensive gun use range from 50,000 to 2,500,000 per year, far outnumbering non suicide deaths.  

But, hey, what do facts mean to a guy that believes Antifa is only an idea?

What if the Referees Don’t Follow the Rules? by Tom Reynolds

The Supreme Court is often described as split between Republicans and Democrats or between Progressive and Conservatives. In reality it is between “Originalists” and those who believe in “Loose Construction”.  

The Originalists believe the Constitution means what it meant when it (and its amendments) were passed and can only be changed by further amending the Constitution.  The Loose Constructionists believe that the Constitution can evolve and adapt to what justices believe is needed, without it being amended.

Amy Coney Barrett is usually classified with the Originalists while left wing justices such as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg are typically seen as Loose Constructionists.  Barrett’s appointment is seen as tipping the balance on the Supreme Court to Originalists and putting an end to Loose Constructionist rulings as well as opening up the possibility of reversing some of the previous rulings of Loose Constructionist courts. 

The 2^nd Amendment is defended by Originalists and it is attacked by Loose Constructionists who want to supersede the Constitution, as written, with their own prejudices and biases.

Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, did an excellent job of simplifying this difference in a recent column.  He compared the Constitution to the rules of football, each of which say what is permissible and what is not.  Williams emphasized that, “a Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only; namely, that of a referee”.  Their job is, “to know the rules of the game and to ensure that those rules are evenly applied without bias…enforcing neutral rules”. 

Referees should be Originalists, according to Williams.

“Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it is like to be a perennial loser…? What would you think of a referee whose play calls were guided by empathy or pity?” 

We’d call them Loose Constructionists and boo them vehemently.

“Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against one team” but not the other?  “Would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule?” 

Williams ends with a deeply inciteful guideline for constitutions and laws:

“what our society needs—the kind of rules whereby you would be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge”. 

Wow!   That idea exactly parallels what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Our society should have rules that are evenly applied, known, and understood.    All sides must play by the same rules; we can compete hard against each other but always within the same rules.  If someone unfairly benefits by a rule, society can make a judgment and change that rule (or not), but until the rule is changed, justices must referee under the old rules. 

With Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court, the 2^nd Amendment should finally have a reliable majority in support of it, in the manner the Founding Fathers envisioned.  The old rules will apply.  Without this reliable majority, an evenly divided Supreme Court has been silent on the 2^nd Amendment since the “Heller” and “McDonald” decisions, for fear that unreliable John Roberts might side with the other side.  We should start to see 2^nd Amendment cases being taken up by the Supreme Court, much to the dismay of gun grabbers everywhere.

​America, Truly A Diamond! (Neil Diamond) by Tom Reynolds

The far left can’t say enough bad about the America we love, the America which, under our Constitution, has done more for more people than any country in the history of the world.  Forget our imperfections and ignore the rantings of the mob, it’s time to stand up and unapologetically celebrate America and all its done and all it represents.  America is a land of optimism and not regrets.  We’ve got a lot to be proud of and celebrate and that was captured in a Neil Diamond song from a few years ago.

Far
We've been traveling far
Without a home
But not without a star

Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream

On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America

Never looking back again
They're coming to America

Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm

Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America

Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America

Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America

My country 'tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty

Of thee I sing​

Will SCOTUS Protect The 2nd Amendment? by Tom Reynolds

President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant Supreme Court (SCOTUS) seat.  Apparently, there are enough Republican votes to ensure her approval by the Senate, unless something unexpected emerges.  That isn’t likely since she has been previously praised by both Republicans and Democrats – before being nominated for SCOTUS.  As the mother of seven children, two are whom are black and adopted from Haiti, there isn’t much room for charges of racism or the Kavanaugh style smears that the left specializes in.  (Although…President Trump is now routinely called a racist in spite of him receiving awards from black rights groups before he ran for President; there are pictures of him being awarded medals alongside Rosa Parks and being congratulated by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! So, anything is possible.)

Democrats attacked Amy Coney Barrett, (or A C B is she will soon be known) at a previous confirmation hearing, for being a Catholic.  However, reliably far-left SCOTUS Justice Sotomayer is also Catholic as are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.  But Barrett may still be pictured as a “Papist” danger to our country, by the Democrats.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment.  A C B is a constitutional originalist in the tradition of Justice Antonin Scalia.  A C B separates protections for civic rights (voting and jury duty) from individual rights (owning a gun) and believes the government must vigorously protect the gun ownership as an individual right instead of a group right (the militia).  This brings her in line with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions and sends the left into a panic.  She would bring SCOTUS to 5-3-1 in favor of the 2nd Amendment (or 6-3 if reliably unreliable John Roberts returned to his Conservative roots).

So, all those gun owners who hate politics and rarely if ever vote can relax and continue their hibernation on election day; SCOTUS will do the heavy lifting for them.
Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!

The Supreme Court was established under the U.S. Constitution but the number of judges is established by a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.  For about 150 years, that law says there will be nine (9) judges.  Faced with losing control of the judiciary, Democrat leaders have said they will raise the number of SCOTUS judges.  They have also proposed raising the number of other federal judges in order to offset the many appointments President Trump has made.  (Lower court judges aren’t as “exciting” as SCOTUS appointments, so we don’t usually hear about the them).  This effort is known as “packing” the court.  If Democrats gain complete control or if they can leverage their votes on other issues, they will raise the number of SCOTUS justices and then, when in power, they will appoint reliably anti-2A judges to SCOTUS, thereby putting the pro-2A judges into the minority and, in effect, killing the 2nd Amendment.

This, of course, is completely in line with previous far-left attempts to ignore every law and tradition that works against them, whether or not these laws and traditions are fundamental parts of American history and culture.  They view American history, traditions and culture like statues in a park that are to be toppled by the mob in search of power and control.

Elections have consequences.  The 2016 election allowed President Trump and the U.S. Senate to appoint and confirm over 200 judges, including two (before A C B) to SCOTUS.  Presumably, most of those 200+ are defenders of the 2nd Amendment.  The far-left would turn this around in an instant if they can gain control.

Don’t hibernate on November 3rd.  Vote for pro 2A candidates and bring some potential hibernators out of their caves and into the voting booth.

Primary Them Out by Tom Reynolds

Joe Crowley was a 23 year N.Y. City Democratic incumbent Congressman on the short list to replace Nancy Pelosi as U.S. House Speaker.  In 2016, he was reelected with 147,000 votes, 83% of the total votes cast.  In 2018, he was defeated by Alexandria Octavio-Cortez in the Democrat primary; she won with less than 17,000 votes, 11% of the votes Crowley got in 2016.

Felix Ortiz is a 26 year Democrat incumbent Assemblyman from N.Y. City who currently serves as Assistant Speaker of the Assembly.  In 2018, he won reelection, unopposed, with 20,738 votes.  In 2020, he was defeated in the Democrat primary by Marcela Mitaynes who got 3,591 votes and won by 272 votes.  Mitaynes got a mere 17% of the votes Ortiz received in 2018.

This data suggests that even the most entrenched incumbent in vulnerable to being beaten in a primary by a narrow but motivated electorate. All the voters have to do is show up in decent numbers, as it often takes less than 20% of the previous votes cast to defeat the incumbent.

The data also shows this is one way the radical element of the Democrat Party is taking over.  (Mitaynes could be described as a Democratic Socialist and some would say A O-C is probably best described as an insane Socialist.)  As the saying goes, 75% of life is just showing up and people rabid for power will show up while those that hate politics or are indifferent will stay home and then ask, “wha’ happened”.

In New York, one must be registered in a party in order to vote in that party’s primary.  In most election districts, a quarter of the registered voters do not register in any party.  Since ours is essentially a two party system, those who register in a non-major political party, that has little chance of a creditable showing, are eliminating themselves from selecting those who will represent them; only the two major party candidates win major elections.

Shouldn’t Democrats be concerned about the radical left movement of their party?  Shouldn’t Republicans care about Republican legislators without real commitment to basic Republican principles?  What might we do about it?  Thought: primary them out of office.  As we have seen, it will take far less votes to defeat them in a primary than in a general election.

It’s not easy to primary an incumbent, as the party organization usually sides with the incumbent who has name recognition and resources.  Non incumbents are a bit easier to primary but the party elite often pick their favorite early in the process and throw the party’s weight behind the choice.  But primary upsets do happen, as we’ve seen, if a motivated electorate arises.

But first, you have to be registered in one of the two parties that count in our system.  To be eligible to vote in next year’s primary, you must be registered as a member of that party.  The rules for registering are a bit complex as to deadlines so it is best to register (or reregister) in a party as soon as possible.  

If you are not registered in any party, you may like being labelled “independent”, but you are losing your chance to pick the candidates.  Consider registering in a major party, preferably one most in tune with your concerns which, hopefully, includes protecting the Second Amendment.  If you are registered in a minor party, think about why you are registered in that party.  Is it because you believe in that party or is it a protest against the major parties?  I know this is difficult for some people but, if you are just protesting, consider reregistering in a major party. Your party registration does not prevent you from voting for the candidate of your choice in the general election but you will have a voice in selecting one of the two candidates that will likely poll significant votes.

It seems safe to say that this message about primary voting is definitely not approved by incumbents of either major party.