HR 38   ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/38/text )

Federal proposed bill HR 38 says that if you have a concealed carry permit in your state, it’s valid in other states (with below restrictions.)

To qualify to carry concealed in a non-resident state, a person:

must not be prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

must carry a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,

must have a valid license or permit issued pursuant to the law of a State, that allows the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides.

The firearm must have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.  (The feds, not the states, regulate interstate commerce.)

This does not include a machine gun or destructive device.

The non-resident state in which a person can carry must:

have a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm,

or

the state does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

It’s not ‘Constitutional Carry’ but it’s a very big step in that direction and well worth supporting.

The bill has 168 co-sponsors in the House and – to no one’s surprise - all of them have an ‘R’ after their name.  The co-sponsors include New York Congresspersons:

Claudia Tenney,

Nick Langworthy,

Elise Stefanik,

These above three are reliable defenders of the 2^nd Amendment.

Republican Congresspersons not co-sponsoring the bill include:

Nicolas LaLota                    (NY 1 – Long Island)

Andrew Gabarino               (NY 2 - Long Island)

Nicole Malliotakis              (NY 11 – Staten Island & Brooklyn)

Michael Lawler                   (NY 17 – NYC northern suburbs / Hudson Valley)          

If you live in their districts, you might consider dropping them a line and asking why they are not co-sponsoring the bill.

Lawler is frequently mentioned as considering a run for governor in 2026.  He seems to fall in to a trap that many Republican candidates fall into – they try to appeal to Democrats but alienate their Republican base and that base fails to show up on election day; they might get a few Democrat votes but lose even more Republican votes.  But hey, they’ve got paid campaign managers advising them while we are just the voters.

Proposed Legislation in D.C. and New Jersey

SCOPE tries to keep you updated on the never-ending attempts in New York State to void the 2nd Amendment.  Once in a while we need to look beyond our borders to see what else is happening.

2nd Amendment defenders can’t help but notice the difference between Republican dominated legislatures and Democrat dominated legislatures.

For instance, at the federal level, where the Republicans have a majority:

The Firearms Policy Coalition reports that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed firearm and tax reforms as part of the budget reconciliation package, including:

Removing suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs) from the definition of firearm under the National Firearms Act. (NFA)

Redefining the term “Firearm” to include only machineguns and destructive devices!

Eliminating the legal basis and requirement for taxing, registering, or restricting these items under the NFA!

Eliminating the government’s authority to classify shotguns as destructive devices

Eliminating the $5 transfer tax for AOWs

Preempting state and local registration or licensing laws that rely solely on NFA classification, so long as the owner acquired the item in compliance with federal (GCA) requirements

Ensuring that owners of SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs don’t run afoul of state and local laws requiring registration or licensing requirement under the NFA as long as they lawfully acquire or possess them under other federal laws!

Then there are the Democrat dominated state legislatures: Anti-2A legislatures have a habit of following each other’s lead, so what we see in Democrat run states like California or New Jersey is probably not far from New York.  The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) reports and describes the following list of gun bills being voted on by the NJ Senate, on Thursday:  S3894 creates a crime for possession of digital instructions to illegally manufacture firearms or firearm components. (You don’t have to produce a gun or component, just have a digital file on your computer.)  S3895 establishes the crime of reckless discharge, which is a swipe at concealed carry. Every time a firearm is used, even in legitimate self-defense situations, prosecutors will have more tools to harass law-abiding gun owners.   S3896 This bill is another attempt to criminalize lawful self-defense with a firearm. It allows possible prosecution for self-defense where a firearm is discharged.  S3706 mandates the use of Merchant Category Codes. This can be used to create a firearms registry or discriminate against gun owners and lawful businesses.  (We already have this in NY State.)  S3900 When someone is accused of a firearms’ crime, it allows imprisonment, while awaiting trial, for an unlimited amount of time.  (Do these people ever read the US Constitution, which supersedes New Jersey State laws?)  S1558 Makes it a first-degree crime (up to 20 years in jail) to transport, ship, or dispose of a firearm without a serial number. No exception for previously owned historical firearms that were lawfully manufactured and lawfully acquired without a serial number. (Ex post facto laws are laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted, and they are prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.)

S3893 This legislation creates new crimes for possessing or selling a machine gun "conversion device."  This could mean that previously-lawful devices that cause a semi-automatic firearm to cycle more rapidly (rather than changing the way the trigger functions from semi-automatic to fully automatic) are illegal.  It also opens the door to prosecution of vendors from other states who sell devices lawfully elsewhere, but which end up in New Jersey.

Bunker Hill

SCOPE wrote, last week, that many important events that occurred 250 years ago, during the Revolutionary War, were passing without enough fanfare.  Here is another.

Two hundred and fifty years ago yesterday, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17, 1775. 

The majority of the battle was fought on the adjacent Breed’s Hill, so why is it called the battle of Bunker Hill?  Because Bunker Hill was the original objective of the British troops.

The British were besieged in Boston when they decided occupy Bunker Hill, for strategic reasons.  They attacked, uphill, an entrenched position.  Two assaults on the colonial positions were repulsed with significant British casualties but the redoubt was captured on their third assault, after the defenders ran out of ammunition and retreated.

As a result, the British suffered 1,054 casualties (226 dead and 828 wounded), and a disproportionate number of these were officers; about 100 commissioned officers were among the dead and wounded. The casualty count was, reportedly, the highest suffered by the British in any single encounter during the entire war.

The 1,200 colonial defenders suffered about 450 losses, in total, of whom 140 were killed.

British Commander General Clinton remarked in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America.”

Many things done have unintended consequences and although the battle, itself, was not terribly significant, their losses effected British strategy in future battles. The British adopted a more cautious planning and maneuver execution in future engagements, which was evident in the subsequent battle in New York City where the British had a chance to destroy Washington’s army but hesitated and allowed Washington to escape, eventually to Valley Forge.

The engagement also convinced the British of the need to hire substantial numbers of Hessian mercenaries to bolster their strength in the face of the new and formidable Continental Army.  You may remember that those Hessians also ended up at Valley Forge.  (But that’s a year away.)

So much for mass shootings being uniquely American!

A letter to the editor sent by Bohdan Rabarsky.

It’s been impossible to find any American newspaper giving the facts surrounding the tragic mass school shooting that just took place in Graz Austria on Tuesday, June 10th.  The attack at the BORG Dreierschutzengasse High School claimed nine lives with the shooter apparently taking his own life. We’re always led to believe that shootings like this only happen in the United States because of our “lax gun laws and our popular gun culture that breeds a sense of wild west in every gun toting citizen.” 

Austria has more restrictive gun control laws than we have in America, but as is in America, it’s a sign that there’s a breakdown in society and morals.  

The BBC is reporting that the alleged shooter used two legally obtained firearms. Gun ownership in Austria requires a registration and purchasing a firearm involves a three day waiting period. Handguns may only be purchased by persons over the age of 21 who hold a firearm license. Anyone wanting to own a firearm in Austria must first provide a reason for the purchase, such as “sports shooting or self-defense”

The 21 year old suspect used a handgun and a shotgun and had a required firearm license, so the notion that a waiting period, registration and licensing will reduce such mass shootings is somehow debunked. Gun restrictions in Austria did not prevent this attack and calling for more gun control would not guarantee this will not happen again

Anti-gunners that want you to believe mass shootings are something unique to America, are lying to you. They happen everywhere but are only reported in a way to fit a narrative to scare you into thinking it can only happen here unless the government passes more gun control, bans guns all together or an Article V Constitutional Convention repeals the 2nd Amendment.

The Revolution and Fathers’ Day

Something important is happening without enough fanfare.  Two hundred and fifty years ago the American Revolution was being fought!  It is an important anniversary to Americans and to the rest of the free world that we have been defending.

The planning for this celebration should have been occurring during the Biden administration.  But that would have entailed celebrating America.

What 250th anniversaries have passed, so far, without enough fanfare?

On April 19th 1775, there was a skirmish at Lexington and Concord followed up by a British retreat to Boston.  It is referred to as “The shot heard round the world.”  It signaled the start of The Revolution and should definitely have been celebrated.

On May 10th 1775, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys captured Fort Ticonderoga, here in New York State.  It was an American morale builder and the cannons captured in this victory were eventually transferred over the mountains to Boston where they threatened the British and forced them to abandon Boston. 

Call me catty, but NY Governor Kathy Hochul could not find time on May 10th to travel a few miles north to celebrate the occasion.  Congresswoman Elise Stefanic was there.

Tomorrow, Saturday, the 14th, we celebrate Flag Day which was enabled by the American Revolution. 

A crucial anniversary is coming up this weekend; Sunday the 15th is Fathers’ Day.  Something important occurred on that day in 1775, which gives increased meaning to this year’s Fathers’ Day and seems like more than a coincidence. 

On June 15th 1775, George Washington – the appropriately named ”Father of our country” – was chosen by the Continental Congress as commander of the Continental Army.  Washington would be at the very center of American events for the next twenty-two years, and it all started on that June 15th; a Virginia planter started on the road to being the “Father of our country.”   

Washington truly was the indispensable man.  Think of how American and world history would have been changed without his leadership, wisdom and unselfishness at the birth of the United States. 

Probably, there would not be a United States.

The Continental Congress made mistakes over the course of The Revolution, but they got that “Big One” right. 

When we honor our fathers on this Sunday, take a minute to remember the “Father of our country” and thank God for giving us George Washington.

S0399 / A0199

Proposed NY State legislature bills S0399 and A0199 are a direct assault on your 2nd Amendment rights.  These bills amend “Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 265.00 of the penal law…and a new subdivision 37 is added.” 

This is how the actual bill reads with the new proposed sections shown in bold and underlined.

Machine-gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a sub-machine gun, and also includes any convertible pistol that is equipped with a pistol converter.”

“Convertible  pistol" means any semi-automatic pistol that can be converted into a machine-gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.

Note how the second paragraph reads; “can be converted.”  It doesn’t say “has been converted.”  Gun control advocates will certainly read this as saying a firearm only has to have the ‘potential’ to be converted and not actually have been converted.  If you legally own a semi-automatic Glock, which can potentially be converted to automatic (a machine gun) by the use of a ‘Glock Switch,’ you would be in “possession of a convertible pistol” even though it has not been converted.

And if your semi-automatic pistol is another brand and not currently convertible, you are not off-the-hook. All it would take is for some inventor, in the future, to invent a pistol converter for your firearm for your gun to suddenly become illegal, even though you have done nothing to convert it.

Subdivision 10 of section 265.02 of the penal law, as added by chapter 1 of the laws of 2013 would be amended by these bills to read: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when…Such person knowingly possesses any pistol converter. 

S0399 had its 3rd Reading which means it is eligible for the Senate majority Leader to bring it to a vote.

A0199 is still in committee.

And all of this is unnecessary. 

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 prohibited civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986.  All of these converted pistols would have been made after that date so a converted pistol is already illegal under existing law. 

But a pistol that is potentially convertible is not illegal under current law – and there’s the real reason for the proposed laws; to make all semi-automatics illegal because they are potentially convertible.

Under federal law, owning a machine gun manufactured before 5/19/1986 is legal.  But, the National Firearms Act of 1934, (which was enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code), requires an extensive background check and paying a $200 tax when buying a machine gun manufactured before 5/19/1986. 

There are 13 states that have state laws banning possession of a machine gun even if you have the proper federal permit.  Guess which state is one of the 13? 

By the way, a pistol converter should not be confused with a Handgun conversion kit which can stabilize and fire your weapon like a rifle as opposed to being fired as a traditional handgun.

Not Coming for Your Gun?

Many gun owners do not feel the need to get involved in 2nd Amendment defense because the government “is not coming for their gun.”

Guess again.  There are proposed bills in the New York Legislature that would apply to probably every civilian firearm purchase.  Here is the math if they were all passed (and remember that the overwhelming anti-2A Democrat majorities could pass any of these and we currently have no way to stop them.)

If you want to buy a firearm at $500,

The existing federal excise tax is $55

Bill S5813 proposes an 11% state excise tax;  $55

The price you pay is $610.  (Excise taxes are buried in the merchandise’s price so you don’t see them.) 

Then you pay 8% NYS Sales tax of $48.80. 

And don’t forget the $9 CCIA fee. 

The $500 gun costs you $$667.80. 

In addition:

Bills S5974 and A5611

Add on the cost $1 million in liability insurance which will be around $400.

Bills S0658 and A4085

Add the cost of classroom and range training; $250 to $500

Bill S3981

Requires a hunting license for $22

And a drug test for ($100?)

And a mental health evaluation for ($200?) 

And a safe storage depository ($100?)

That $500 gun will cost you at least $1,500 but probably not more than $2,500. 

And that’s before you try to buy any ammo!

They are coming for your gun!

Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education (S.A.F.E.) sent out the following:

32 Years Is Long Enough!

For over three decades, a dangerous government policy has stripped law-abiding Americans of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms - often without due process.

The “Schumer Amendment,” passed in 1992, handed the ATF unchecked power to permanently ban gun ownership for anyone with certain non-violent offenses or even short-term mental health commitments. This “Amendment” added to the dangerous precedent of empowering the government to act as the ultimate arbiter of our God-given rights.

But now, the Department of Justice has issued a historic rule that could restore these rights for the first time in 32 years. This is our chance to push back and ensure that gun control advocates aren’t the only voices the DOJ hears.

The window to submit public comments closes on June 18th. Make your voice count while there’s still time.

TAKE ACTION - ALERT THE DOJ. Feel free to copy and paste GOA’s comments found below.

I strongly support the Department of Justice’s rule to allow for federal restoration of gun rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

If the Trump administration is serious about wanting to rein in unelected bureaucrats who have abused their power and waged war on individuals’ rights and freedom, then this rule must be implemented quickly.

Unelected ATF bureaucrats should not have the power to permanently deny certain Americans from ever exercising a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Since the “Schumer Amendment” went into effect in 1992, thousands of would-be gun owners have been asking for their constitutionally protected rights to be restored.

It is unjust to strip those Americans of a constitutional right - for life - especially a right that provides personal safety and security, and a right that is explicitly prohibited from being “infringed” upon.

I urge the Department of Justice to move forward and fully implement this rule through the creation of a formal process to ensure speedy rights restoration

Gun Owners of America (GOA) posted this explanation which should help you understand the above:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

• Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 

• ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 

• The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT

Christian v James

The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Bruen established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Bruen also set a standard that gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

In response, New York State under Governor Kathy Hochul enacted the misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which was an attempt to work around the Bruen ruling.  CCIA expanded the list of “sensitive places” in NY State where guns are banned to include public parks, libraries, and private property opened to the public unless posted otherwise by the property owner. Places in NY State where firearms could be carried became an exception, not a constitutionally protected right.

A lawsuit called Christian v. James is fighting the ‘sensitive place’ tactic.  The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined individual plaintiff Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation to file this lawsuit against these new restrictions.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for:

10 AM on Wednesday June 25, 2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
17th Floor, Room 1703
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE Docket #: 25-384

The case boils down to the fact that New York’s sweeping bans are government overreach of the type that the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.  States cannot invent new categories of “sensitive places” to justify gun bans, especially when these restrictions lack clear historical precedent.

Labelling most of a state as a ‘sensitive place’ where firearms have been banned has become a favorite tactic of heavily democrat states like NY, Illinois, California, etc.  The outcome of Christian v. James could have significant implications for those states using ‘sensitive places’ as a gun control tactic.

A positive decision by the 2nd Circuit will only directly impact NY State but it may have influence on other lawsuits, as Christian is one of many similar cases across the USA.

Ultimately, many legal experts expect the Supreme Court will have to take on these cases.

Fellow SCOPE Patriot,  

Today, the New York State Senate will vote on Bill S00362, which proposes extending the current waiting period for all firearm purchases from three days to ten days. This bill also states that violations would be classified as a Class A misdemeanor.

I strongly urge you to contact your State Senator—regardless of party affiliation—and ask them to vote NO on this legislation.

The existing three-day waiting period is already effective, and there is no conclusive evidence indicating that a longer waiting period would enhance safety. Extending it unnecessarily burdens law-abiding citizens without delivering proven benefits.

Governor Hochul claims this bill is about protecting New Yorkers from themselves. However, this approach overlooks data, common sense, and the rights of responsible firearm owners.

Please make your voice heard today.  Please DON'T WAIT. DO IT NOW!

S00362 has a SAME AS BILL.  It is Assembly bill A03223 which was referred to the Assembly Codes Committee on January 27, 2025, with no action since.  However, the NY State Assembly's legislative term has been extended another week, through 18 June, 2025. 

We need to stay vigilant.  You can expect more legislative alerts this week and next. 

Thank you.