Log in

from our SCOPE membership

  • 11/06/2023 6:30 PM | Anonymous

    AMMO Act  by Tom Reynolds

    The usual Democrat Senator suspects are pushing the Ammunition Modernization and Monitoring Oversight Act. (AMMO Act)

    • It would require background checks for ammo purchases.  (Using NY State’s venture into ammo background checks as an example, can you imagine a nationwide system?  Put in your order now for approval in time for hunting season…2025.)
    • It prohibits bulk sales of ammunition based on the type of ammo. It specifically limits individuals to purchasing - within a 5-day period - no more than 100 rounds for .50 caliber ammo and 1000 rounds for all other ammunition. 
    • Ammo dealers must get a license separate from the Federal Firearms License (FFL) required for gun sales.
    • It would also ban out-of-state ammunition purchases.
    • It will require all vendors to report ammunition sales to the ATF.
    • It would require serial numbers to be engraved on each item of ammunition.
    • It would also require a license from the United States Attorney General of all who engage in business as a firearms or ammunition importer, manufacturer, or dealer.

    The Democrats endorsing this are bringing out all the usual talking points including that it is just “common sense” (which is an uncommon attribute amongst the Democrats in Washington D C .) 

    None of the articles on this mention a bill number so, at this point, it has apparently not been officially introduced and given a bill number.  But it is coming!

    However, officially introduced in the House and given a bill number is the Ammo Identification Act of 2023. (HR 4339.)

    As usual, the devil is in the details – or to be more precise – the unfeasibility of this is in the details.

    There are billions of rounds of ammo manufactured every year.  That’s going to require a loooong ID number. 

    And, if it were possible, would the ID be on the casing or the lead bullet itself?  The authors of the bill probably don’t understand the difference between the casing and the bullet. 

    And they don’t understand that, if the ID was on the casing, the shooter needs only to ‘police his brass’ or use a revolver to defeat the purpose of the bill. 

    And if it was actually imprinted on the lead bullet, say a .223 caliber used in the infamous ‘assault weapons,’ that’s would require really really really small printing of a really really really long number. 

    And don’t the authors watch crime programs on TV; bullets get distorted when they hit the target.

    But like most gun control measures, the left wing media won’t ask any questions and, instead, just reprint the Democrat propaganda about ‘common sense gun control.”

  • 10/30/2023 11:11 AM | Anonymous

    Second Amendment Advocates Must Show Guns Also Save Lives  by Tom Reynolds

    Self-defense expert Massad Ayoob* makes the argument that 2A advocates need to be more vocal in talking about the lives that are saved by guns.  The gun grabbing Left is always on the offense and, thus, we are on the defense.  We need to go on the offense!

    Those who advocate for gun control, usually through the passing of additional laws, have controlled the narrative for too long. It is time to “use the emotional element on our side as well.” He acknowledged that several thousand people are killed with guns every year. But he said gun control activists focus almost exclusively on the tragic number of deaths while ignoring the millions of lives saved by guns.

    According to the 2021 National Firearms Survey published by Georgetown University, there were an estimated 1.67 million instances in which a person used a firearm in defense of self or others.  According to the survey, a little over 25 percent of these incidents occurred in the gun owner’s home, and more than half, 53 percent, happened outside their home but on their property. About 9.1 percent of defensive gun uses were in public, and 4.8 percent occurred at work.

    Most importantly, in 81.9 percent of the cases, no shots were fired, the study reads. Yet gun control advocates, and their complicit media sources, ignore, downplay or deny the “good guy with a gun” narrative.

    Other studies have shown similar results.  Gary Kleck used Center for Disease Control (CDC) unpublished surveys and found 1 million annual defensive uses of a gun.

    Using Kleck’s lower number of 1 million defensive gun uses, if only 1 percent of them would have resulted in a murder, that is 10,000 lives saved.  If only 1 percent would have resulted in a rape, that is 10,000 rapes prevented.

    The focus is always on the killers and their victims. The faces of the two Columbine, Colorado shooters appeared on the covers of Time and Newsweek. This type of media attention drives copycat killers to seek attention they can’t get any other way. Mr. Ayoob said the attention should be on the people who take the role of defenders.

    Mr. Ayoob points out that another killer had a similar plan for a church, also in Colorado. But it turned out very differently. On Dec. 9, 2007, a gunman opened fire in the parking lot of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. (He had killed two other people the night before.) He shot four people in the parking lot, two of whom died. As he entered the church foyer, he shot and wounded one man and was confronted by volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam.  The former police officer was holding a 9 mm handgun and was able to stop the killer before he could hurt anyone else.

    According to Mr. Ayoob, it’s a travesty that Columbine is a catchphrase for gun control, while New Life Church is virtually forgotten.

    *Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an American firearms, self-defense instructor and Security advisor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute in Concord, New Hampshire, from 1981 to 2009, and now operates his own company. Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns MagazineAmerican Handgunner, Gun Week, Guns & Ammo and Combat Handguns. On September 30, 2020, Ayoob was named president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

  • 10/27/2023 3:06 PM | Anonymous

    Lewiston, Maine  by Tom Reynolds

    Reuters reported on Thursday that 18 people were killed and 13 were wounded when a man with what appears to be a semi-automatic rifle attacked patrons at a bowling alley and a bar in the city of Lewiston, Maine, the previous night.

    Robert R. Card is being hunted as a person of interest and an arrest warrant has been issued.

    Card is a U.S. Army reservist who law enforcement had committed to a mental health facility over the summer.  According to the bulletin from the Maine Information & Analysis Center, a unit of Maine State Police, he was, “reported to have been committed to mental health facility for two weeks during summer 2023 and subsequently released."  The Associated Press reported he was “acting erratically in mid-July” while taking part in training at West Point. Police in New York were called and Card was taken to West Point’s Keller Army Community Hospital for evaluation.

    The gun grabbers, especially Joe Biden, have already come out in force.  Guns bad.  Red Flag laws good.  Constitutional rights are of no interest.

    Reuters, of course, had to add that, “Guns are lightly regulated in Maine, a largely rural state near the northeast border with Canada where about half of all adults live in a household with a gun, according to a 2020 study by RAND Corporation.

    Later, Reuters added that, “Maine, which has the fourth-lowest murder rate in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of annual homicides in the state has fluctuated between 16 and 29 since 2012, according to Maine State Police.”

    Lots of guns in Maine but a low gun murder rate.  Doubtful that fact will get picked up by left-wing organizations or mentioned by Joe Biden and company.

    Reuters also added, “Maine does not require a permit to buy or carry a gun, and it does not have so-called "red flag" laws seen in some other states that allow law enforcement to temporarily disarm people deemed to be dangerous.”

    Not mentioned is that Maine does have a ‘yellow flag’ law which allows police to petition for temporary confiscation of a person’s firearms after an examination by a professional trained in these issues.  It deals with the potential problem while solving the constitutional issue of due process of law. Imagine that, Maine does not have ‘Red Flag’ laws, but they certainly do have laws in place to deal with mentally ill people. 

    Oh yeah, why was Maine’s ‘yellow flag’ law not used?

    Notice that, in the midst of the Reuters’ article about a shooting, Reuters used the generic “murder” and “homicide” words which include murders and homicides not involving a gun.  But you are not supposed to pick up on the fact that gun related deaths are even less.

    And questions that are certainly not going to be asked by the media: what psychotropic drugs was he prescribed and what were the side effects?  Was he actively using the drugs?  Was he addicted?  Was he using other illegal drugs?

    And especially to be avoided: was he a cannabis user?

    The average non gun owner probably doesn’t know much about the issues behind gun ownership and the average person doesn’t know about the government’s failures when it runs mental health institutions.  But they do know that the media will continue the drum beat that guns are bad and avoid any evidence that does not fit the narrative.

  • 10/26/2023 6:13 PM | Anonymous

    Working as Planned (SNAFU)  by Tom Reynolds

    Because of NY State’s new laws on background checks for ammunition purchases, Tom King, the head of NYS Rifle & Pistol Association, was denied when he tried to purchase .410 shotgun shells in Rensselear County.

    King has had a pistol permit for more than 40 years and has indicated that he will go through the appeals process.  He cannot buy ammunition until the appeals process is concluded.

    A person who had been denied has 30 days to appeal and the NYS Police have 30 days to respond and explain the reason for the denial.

    King said, “The only person that this is affecting is the lawful legal citizen of New York State.  We’re the ones being discriminated against.”


    Chautauqua County Sheriff James Quattrone told the Post-Journal:.

    On Sept. 22, I attempted to purchase two boxes of shotgun shells at a local sports store. These shells were to be used at a trap/skeet shoot that I was sponsoring to raise funds for a new nonprofit organization.”

    “Prior to being permitted to purchase the ammunition, the store spent the 15 minutes or so entering my data in their computer to complete the background check.  The status came back ‘Delayed.’ We waited another 15 minutes with no update, so I had to leave the store without completing the purchase.”

    Approval for Quattrone’s purchase didn’t come for another 25 hours — one hour after the fundraiser ended…


    Per Cornell’s Legal Information Institute:

    Federal regulation 28 CFR § 25.11 Prohibited activities and penalties (concerning use of the NICS system.)

    (a) State or local agencies, FFLs, or individuals violating this subpart A shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and subject to cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges.

    (b) Misuse or unauthorized access includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    (2) State or local agencies', FFLs', or individuals' purposefully using the system to perform a check for unauthorized purposes; (background checks on ammo purchases would be an unauthorized purpose.) 

    The ongoing Gazzola lawsuit contends that New York State’s new ammunition background checks system violates the above regulation because the FBI is only authorized to use the NICS system to do background checks on firearms transfers.  NYS Police employees are manually entering individual ammunition background check data from their new system, by hand, into the federal FBI-NICS system in violation of 28 CFR §25.11

    In simple terms, using the federal NICS system to do background checks on ammunition purchases is illegal.


    Governor Hochul was recently in Israel for some unknown reason other than shoring up political support amongst Jews.  While in Israel, Hochul was spotted wearing body armor.  Last year, Hochul signed into law a ban on the sale of body armor to most people. 

    She was probably protected by armed guards, just as she is in NY State which is another thing that she would prevent ordinary citizens for enjoying.


    Reports are pouring in about delays and denials under the new ammunition background checks.  It’s up to the Superintendent of the NY State Police to fix the system.  As SCOPE pointed out on Wednesday, the current Superintendent is: “to be named later.”


    Aaron Dorr, Executive Director of NYS Firearms Association had this to say about Hochul’s new scheme: “This is blatantly unconstitutional. 100%. And that was before last year’s Bruen decision. Post Bruen, this is nothing more than a middle finger from Kathy Hochul to gun owners. The Bruen decision made it clear that ANY current or future gun control laws needed to show a ‘historical precedent’ or they would immediately be deemed unconstitutional. There is ZERO historical precedent for registering people who buy ammunition. And that goes doubly true for requiring gun owners to pay a tax to the government for the ‘privilege!’


    Does Hochul care?

    Is the state working day-and-night to fix the system?

    Hochul probably relishes the delays.

    She doesn’t care because she is doing exactly what her wealthy benefactors, and what the Biden Administration, and what those citizens residing in New York City who voted her into Office, want her to do. Hochul knows she is on safe ground politically on this as well as not having any personal liability, and that is all that matters to her—at least at this moment.

    Will this change as increasing violent crime and the frustration of the ammo purchasing public ramps up?

  • 10/25/2023 9:21 PM | Anonymous

    Musical Chairs  by Tom Reynolds

    If you are paying attention to the various firearms related lawsuits filed against the Cuomo and Hochul administrations, you will know that last year’s big Supreme Court decision was in the case of NYSRPA versus Bruen.  Bruen was Kevin Bruen, the head of the NY State Police, at that time, but no longer. 

    Current lawsuits are being filed against Steven Nigrelli, the current head of the NY State Police.

    Oops.  No longer current but now the former head of the NY State Police. 

    Currently, there is no head of the NY State Police as Nigrelli has resigned.  Is this a clever plan of the Hochul Administration?  If there is no head of the NY State Police, there is no one to file suit against for the many unconstitutional acts of her NY State government?

    Why the turnover?

    Kevin Bruen was confirmed by the NY Senate in June 2021.  Fifteen months later (October 2022) he resigned.  Apparently, the governor’s office began investigating his potential mishandling of internal workplace complaints.

    The NY Times reported* that Mr. Bruen was being investigated for supposedly shielding a former director of human resources at the agency with whom he had a close working relationship from at least one internal complaint that had been lodged against her.

    Mr. Bruen had a close relationship with the former human resources staffer, MaryEllen Tedesco, whom Bruen had sought to protect, according to the two officials with knowledge of the matter. Ms. Tedesco, who assisted with vetting applicants and making hiring decisions at the agency, had already resigned.

    Enter Bruen’s replacement Steven Nigrelli as the Acting head of the NY State Police, starting October 2002.

    Exit Steven Nigrelli on October 2023 due to his resignation.

    The Times Union reported** that Nigrelli submitted his resignation after learning he would not be named the permanent leader of the agency following an investigation into allegations that he had harassed or mistreated employees, including women.  The state Office of Employee Relations launched an investigation after receiving a harassment and discrimination complaint against the 32-year veteran of the State Police.

    Gov. Kathy Hochul's office informed Nigrelli of her decision not to nominate Nigrelli as the permanent head of the NY State Police.  That followed the investigation that substantiated some of the allegations dating back years. There was no finding of any criminal conduct.

    In August 2021, Governor Andrew Cuomo resigned after a report from the New York State attorney general concluded that the governor sexually harassed nearly a dozen women, including current and former government workers, by engaging in unwanted touching and making inappropriate comments. The 165-page report also found that Mr. Cuomo and his aides unlawfully retaliated against at least one of the women for making her complaints public and fostered a toxic work environment.

    Gun owners in NY State must now submit to and pay for a background check to buy ammunition.  Perhaps, the same should apply to high level executives in the NY State government.

    State Police Superintendent Resigns Amid Investigation - The New York Times (

    ** NY state police leader Steven Nigrelli resigns after harassment probe (

  • 10/24/2023 9:51 AM | Anonymous

    Deliver Us from Terrorists  by Tom Reynolds

    Israel was brutally attacked by HAMAS when its border security failed.  Hundreds were killed, wounded and taken captive, including Americans.  A terrible lesson in what can happen when a country’s border security collapses.

    Over the past almost three years of the Biden Administration, millions of people have invaded our country through the non-existent southern border.  Many of these are young men of military age.  Some were caught or surrendered while others escaped capture.  Before being released into our country with their promise to show up in court in a few years, the illegals went through some sort of preliminary vetting process to weed out potential terrorists.

    Nejwa Ali was hired in 2019 as an ‘asylum officer’ with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of Homeland Security.  Earlier this year she was made an ‘adjudication officer’, according to her LinkedIn profile. The role includes vetting people before they enter the US.

    The Daily Wire said that a screenshot of Ali’s LinkedIn profile, (which has since been altered to hide the history), showed that she worked as a public affairs officer for the Palestinian Delegation to the U.S. in 2016 and 2017. The delegation served as the “PLO office in D.C.,” until then-President Donald Trump expelled the organization from the country.

    The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been designated as a terrorist organization at various times in its history.

    Available on line has been a picture of a smiling Nejwa Ali posing in front of the image of Che Guevara in Havana. (Technically, Guevara may or may not have been a terrorist but he was a racist, homophobic, torturer and murderer – as well as hero to many on the Left.  Kinda like the PLO.)

    According to the USCIS, applicants are thoroughly vetted and face extensive background checks before being hired for a permanent position, the Washington Times reported.  So…how did a Public Affairs Officer of a terrorist organization become responsible for weeding out terrorists who try to enter the USA illegally?  What could go wrong?

    After the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack that killed at least 1,400 Israelis, including civilians and babies, various sources have reported that Nejwa Ali posted, “F–k Israel, the government, and its military @stateofisrael @timesofisrael are you ready for your downfall…”

    She also wrote on Instagram: “F–K APARTHEID Israel and any Israeli that supports that bull–T. F–k you, may Allah forgive you. and spare us the crocodile tears, I sure as hell give zero f–ks.”

    However, USCIS spokesman Matthew Burke told The Washington Examiner that she has been placed on administrative leave.  (Probably with pay?)

    While the Biden regime works to disarm law abiding American citizens, many of whom served in the U S armed forces, should we be confident that Bien and company are doing all they can to protect us from terrorists, so we won’t need our weapons for protection?  

    There is no evidence that Biden intends to appoint Nejwa Ali to head his Disinformation Board.  (Sarcasm intended.)

  • 10/23/2023 6:22 PM | Anonymous

    Lessons From Israel  by Tom Reynolds

    CNN recently made the case for civilians being armed.

    CNN?  Really?

    CNN’s article* was devoted to how Hamas had detailed plans of an attack on the Israeli kibbutz of Melalsim, near the Gaza border.  But CNN included, perhaps by accident: “…guards engaged in several skirmishes with the attackers for hours, often going up against larger numbers and firepower...At one point, there were just three security guards “fighting against a force of about 15 or 16 terrorists.”

    The security guards were armed volunteer residents of the kibbutz. 

    A more complete story is in a Wall Street Journal article.**  It said: “…volunteers rushed from their homes in helmets and protective vests worn over the T-shirts they had slept in, toting M16 rifles. Outnumbered and fighting alone or in pairs, the men mounted a life-or-death stand...”

    M16’s!  Aren’t those – gasp - Assault Rifles?

    Men protecting women!  How sexist!  No wonder many in academia are siding with Hamas!

    This also proves the old military saying that people will fight more desperately to protect their homes and family.

    The article also tells how residents were depending upon the Israeli army to immediately defend them but that was slow in happening.  Defense became self-defense.

    No Mefalsim residents were killed or taken hostage while hundreds of others, outside Mefalsim, fell victim to the Hamas’ terrorists.

    Apparently, being an armed civilian during a terrorist might save your life.  Who knew?

    John Lott*** gives some background: only 3% of Israel’s population is permitted to carry guns in public for protection.  (There are now 27 ‘Constitutional Carry’ states in the U S A where permits are not required.)

    There were some voices speaking out for being armed.  On September 20th, in a Jerusalem Post article, Israel Police spokesman Commander Eli Levi had said: “…we reiterate the call of the Chief of Police and the Head of Operations and call on the public to carry weapons and be trained in their use when necessary, to bear their weapons during these days (high holy days), even in places of prayer and family entertainment.”

    As in the United States, the Israeli Left disagrees with citizens being armed.  Opposition leader Yair Lapid responded: “Calling the citizens of Israel to come with weapons to the synagogue on Yom Kippur is not a security policy, it is dangerous populism.

    Self-defense  is populism?  Everything is political to the Left.  It appears that Levi was correct.  Has Lapid apologized?

    Oh, and don’t forget, Kathy Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act banned guns from “places of prayer.”

    A few days after the attack, with the prospect of a prolonged war and with a counter-offensive mounting, Israel’s Second Amendment-lacking citizenry was granted new ‘permissions’.  Israel’s Minister of National Security went on “X” and wrote: “Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation, in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves.”

    Basically, regulations were loosened - not lifted - in order for more Israelis to arm themselves.

    Included in that ‘loosened’ regulations was that citizens were allowed to purchase 100 bullets (the former limit was 50).   

    Here are some comments about the ‘loosening’ from the BPR Business and Politics website, that probably echo most SCOPE members thoughts:

    100 bullets is nothing.  I shoot 200 every range day and I go twice a week

    100 bullets? 100?!  All this is the very definition of “Too Little Too Late”.

    How many died because they weren’t “allowed” to own a gun, or were only “allowed” 50 bullets?!

    All Israelis have the God given right to defend themselves as they see fit.

    Hamas planned their attack over several years.  A patient terrorist is a very dangerous terrorist.

    Over the past almost three years of the Biden Administration, millions of people have invaded our country through the non-existent southern border.  Many of these are young men of military age.  Some were caught or surrendered while others escaped capture.  Many of them were released into our country with their promise to show up in court in a few years.

    The last comment about the 100 bullet limit from the BPR web site hits home:

    They live in a war zone and weren’t allowed to have guns.  Stupidity is everywhere. 

    The U S A has avoided being a war zone since the Civil War but many of our national policies seem intent on creating an environment where that will change.

    *  How volunteer guards foiled a carefully planned Hamas attack on one kibbutz | CNN  

    **  When Hamas Attacked, This Israeli Kibbutz Fought Back and Won (   

    *** At the Washington Times: Second Amendment matters in a time of crisis: The importance of good guys with guns (

  • 10/17/2023 12:54 PM | Anonymous

    Ammo Shortage?  by Tom Reynolds

    Per Wikipedia: Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is a 3,935-acre U.S. government-owned, contractor-operated facility in northeastern Independence, Missouri, that was established by Remington Arms in 1941 to manufacture and test small caliber ammunition for the U.S. Army…As of July 2007, the plant produced nearly 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition per year. Although owned by the US Government, it is now operated by Olin Winchester. Winchester produces ammo and sells it to the government.

    When the facility is able to produce more ammo than the government requires, they sell it either to consumers or distributors. Currently, it is reported that Lake City supplies 30% of the civilian market for 5.56 ammunition, which is the primary ammo for the infamous AR15, which the gun grabbers labelled an “assault rifle” and are constantly trying to outlaw.

    Rumors are circulating that Lake City had quietly canceled several civilian contracts. Other news sources report that Lake City has cancelled all of its commercial contracts.  If true, (and so far it is just rumors) retail stores will no longer be able to purchase ammo from Lake City which could lead to an ammunition shortage and inflation on the civilian market.

    Does this mean that the US Government is requiring more ammunition and there will be none extra to sell to the civilian market?  Wars in Ukraine and Israel might give this theory some credibility.

    Or is this another backdoor effort by the Biden administration to neuter the 2nd Amendment by creating an ammunition shortage?

    On a, hopefully, unrelated story, on Friday (the 13th) there was an explosion at a Hornady Manufacturing chemical compounding building in Wood River, Nebraska.  One person died and two others were injured.

    To date there is no further information about the cause, the amount of damage and the effect on ammo supplies.

    Normally, SCOPE avoids trafficking in conspiracy theories.  But the attacks by the left on anything they oppose have become so blatant that one has to wonder.  It would not be beyond the Biden administration to use the power of the government to intentionally force ammo manufacturers out of the civilian marketplace.

    Just the rumors of a possible shortage may be enough to spur inflationary increases in ammo.  ______________________________________________________

    And if you did not have enough unhappy news, NY State’s Public Service Commission has announced that NYSEG and RG&E will be enjoying large rate increases on gas and electric.

    Gannett reports that: NYSEG customers will see a 22.1% increase in electric and a 6.1% increase in gas over 3 years; RG&E customers will see rate increase of 16% for electric and 10.9% for gas over 3 years.


    In addition to maintenance – which should have been an ongoing expense – Gannett states the rate increase will go to “transmission projects and other upgrades to help the state achieve its goals of a carbon free electrical grid.” And this is only a drop-in-the-bucket since taxpayers’ dollars are going into all sorts of subsidies for electrifying the state.

    Can’t afford current rates?  Join the crowd.

    Gannett also reports that there are 205,000 customers of these two utilities that are 60 days or more behind on their bills, amounting to $145,000,000 in past dues.

    But Public Service Commissioner John Maggiore had these words of comfort, that this was the better option.


    The Lake City report is rumor but the utility report is fact.  What do they have in common?  Both would add to inflationary pressures and both are caused by the government forcing its priorities on us.

  • 10/16/2023 1:07 PM | Anonymous

    Red Flag Laws and Their Attack on the 2nd Amendment by Matthew D. Winchell, J.D.

    On June 23, 2022, the United States’ Supreme Court struck down a New York State law that placed an unsurmountable number of limitations on applicants seeking concealed carry pistol permits, the case commonly referred to as Bruen.1 In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against New York State, marking the largest win for 2nd Amendment advocates in well over a decade.2

    In response to the decision, New York State has started enforcing Extreme Risk Protection Orders, more commonly known as Red Flag Laws. Essentially, there are seven relevant factors that the Court shall consider when making their determination whether there are grounds for a temporary extreme risk protection order:

    (1) “a threat or act of violence or use of physical force directed toward self, the petitioner, or another person;

    (2) a violation or alleged violation of an order of protection;

    (3) any pending charge or conviction for an offense involving the use of a firearm;

    (4) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun;

    (5) any history of a violation of an extreme risk protection order;

    (6) evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; or

    (7) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm, rifle, shotgun, or other deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any ammunition therefor.”3

    This list seems expansive, but the legislature left the door open for each individual judge to add to the list as they see fit.4

    If a Court has unilaterally found that a person is no longer capable of being in possession of weapons, a temporary extreme risk protection order will be served upon you in writing. The order will include the following:

    (1) a statement of the grounds found for the issuance of the order;

    (2) the date and time the order expires;

    (3) the address of the Court that issued the order;

    (4) a statement informing you that you may not purchase, possess, or attempt to purchase or possess any type of firearm and that the Court will hold a hearing no sooner than three business days, but no later than six business days after the service of the temporary order.5

    If you receive a temporary extreme risk protection order, and you have been notified that there is a hearing scheduled to determine whether a final extreme risk protection order is appropriate, it is imperative that you have an attorney working with you through this process. If the Court issues a final extreme risk protection order, you will not be able to possess any firearms for a period of twelve months.6 Furthermore, a request can be made to extend the time frame that the extreme risk protection order is in place.7 If this is done a hearing will be held to determine if the request will be granted based on sufficient evidence of new conduct.8

    These laws have been scrutinized in various regions of New York State as being unconstitutional for infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.9

    In G.W. v. C.N., the Supreme Court in Monroe County held that the Extreme Risk Protection Order laws are unconstitutional and any temporary order or final order issued by the Court pursuant to this law be vacated immediately.10

    Essentially, the question presented to the Court “is whether CPLR Article 63-a sufficiently protects a New York citizen’s due process rights when, as here, the state denies a fundamental right, to wit: by infringing on that citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”11

    Before analyzing the question presented, the Court looked back to Bruen and reiterated that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”12 The Court also repeated from Bruen that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”13 Contrary to what many people against the 2nd Amendment would have us believe, in another hallmark case, McDonald, the Court declared that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.14

    Turning back to the question at hand in G.W. v. C.N., the Court notes in dicta that after July 6, 2022, police officers and district attorneys are mandated to file for a temporary extreme risk protection order “upon the receipt of credible information that an individual is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others” as defined by the mental hygiene law.15

    The Court compared the language in the extreme risk protection order to that in the mental hygiene law, which defines likelihood to result in serious harm in the following manner:

    (1) “substantial risk of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm or other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself; or|

    (2) a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.”16

    Under the mental hygiene law, it is required that a physician to make the determination that a patient present a “likelihood to result in serious harm.”17

    The extreme risk protection order and the mental hygiene law both require the same finding that “an individual is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm.”18 The extreme risk protection order goes one step further when it specifically refers to the mental hygiene law in the definition.19 However, it does not afford the same protection of having a physician make the medical determination of a person being likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm.20 Instead, it places that decision in the hands of the district attorney, police officers, school administrators, and various other non-professionals.21

    This would be one of the main issues the Court found within the law for extreme risk protection orders.22 The court said that “[i]n order to pass constitutional muster, the legislature must provide that a citizen be afforded procedural guarantees, such as a physician’s determination that a respondent presents a condition ‘likely to result in serious harm,’ before a petitioner files for a TERPO or ERPO.”23

    This was not the only problem the Court found within the law. It commented in depth of the possibility that someone other than the person subject to the ERPO may have their guns taken away without procedural due process.24 Specifically, “a court may be permitted to issue a search warrant to confiscate a respondent’s guns, but which also may result in certain circumstances of the confiscation of guns owned or possessed by non-respondents.”25 In legal terms possess has a specific meaning, “a person has tangible property in his or her constructive possession when that person exercises a level of control over the area in which the property is found sufficient to give him or her the ability to use or dispose of the property.”26 Therefore, if the respondent subject to the ERPO lives with a person who is not subject to an ERPO, that person would have their guns taken away without probable cause.27 This would be a violation of that person’s Second and Fourth Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.28

    It is very likely that these Red Flag Laws will be held unconstitutional, either by New York State or by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a very slow-moving process as it takes years for a case to make it to these levels. In the meantime, it is imperative that you seek assistance of counsel if you have a been served with a temporary extreme risk protection order. If you do not seek assistance, you risk losing your 2nd Amendment rights.

    For a printable .pdf copy of this article click HERE.

    1 New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).

    2 Id.

    3 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6342 (McKinney)

    4 Id.

    5 Id.

    6 Id.

    7 Id.

    8 Id.

    9 G.W. v. C.N., 181 N.Y.S.3d 432 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022); See also R.M. v. C.M., 189 N.Y.S.3d 425 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023).

    10 Id.

    11 Id. at 435.

    12 Id.

    13 Id.

    14 McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill, 130 S.Ct 3020 (2020).

    15 G.W., 181 N.Y.S.3d at 436.

    16 Id.; See also MHL § 9.39.

    17 Id.

    18 Id.

    19 Id.

    20 Id.

    21 Id.

    22 Id.

    23 Id.

    24 Id.

    25 Id. at 438-9.

    26 Id. at 439

    27 Id.

    28 Id.


    Matthew Winchell is a law associate with Passalacqua & Associates, where he focuses his work on 2nd Amendment law and criminal defense. Passalacqua & Associates stands ready to fight for your 2nd Amendment rights in any proceeding against any New York State entity.

    He can be reached at 315-500- 6425 or

  • 10/06/2023 12:30 PM | Anonymous

    Columbus versus Indigenous Peoples  by Tom Reynolds

    The Left wants to eliminate Columbus Day, as he offends them because he was involved with slavery.  Instead, the Left wants to honor Indigenous Peoples.  It’s appropriate that Democrats want to honor Indigenous Peoples as Indigenous Peoples’ history parallels the Democrat Party’s history of slavery.

    Did you know that the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery did not apply to all slaves?  The “Five Civilized Tribes” of the southeast - Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole - also participated in the institution of slavery.  Because these tribes were located outside the sovereignty of the United States, constitutional amendments did not apply to them.  (Kinda like Kathy Hochul, who doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution applies to New York State.)

    According to journalist Aliana E. Roberts, by 1800, the “Five Tribes” had developed “plantations that rivaled those of their white neighbors.”  She also notes that the percentage of black slaves in the population was not insignificant.  In 1860:

    • Cherokee Nation citizens owned 2,511 slaves (15 percent of their total population),
    • Choctaw citizens owned 2,349 slaves (14 percent of their total population), and
    • Creek citizens owned 1,532 slaves (10 percent of their total population).
    • Chickasaw citizens owned 975 slaves, which amounted to 18 percent of their total population.

    These were proportions equivalent to that of white slave owners in Tennessee, a large slaveholding state.

    Most other North American tribes also practiced some form of slavery, even before Columbus.  (Wait a minute – Columbus didn’t introduce slavery to America?  If that’s so, could the 1619 Project also be wrong?)

    In The Birth of America, William Polk writes: “Indian societies were frequently at war with one another…booty consisted in part of slaves.  Slavery was as common in the New World as among Africans and Europeans. Practices were equally cruel.

    Close to home here in NY State, the Mohawks would eat their captives, which is usually referred to as cannibalism.

    A special “shout out” on Indigenous Peoples Day should go to the Aztecs.

    The Aztecs had religious festivities at the end of their 20-day months and human sacrifice was an essential feature of these festivities.  (And you thought giving up something for Lent was hard.)

    Human sacrifice also was part of the legend around the founding of the Aztec capital city, Tenochtitlan, which was accompanied by the sacrifice and skinning of the daughter of the King Coxcox of Culhuacan.  (By contrast, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton decided on the current site of Washington D.C. over dinner and a bottle of wine.)

    Another aspect of Aztec human sacrifice was children who were made to cry before the sacrifice. The tears were thought to wet the earth and thus appease the gods. If a child did not cry, the priests would sometimes tear out the nails of the child to make him or her cry.

    The Aztec practice of human sacrifice also served a political purpose.  The Aztecs were small in number compared to the other subjugated tribes and, thus, there was always a danger of an alliance between these tribes against the Aztecs.  To avert this, Aztecs demanded humans as a tribute from the subjugated tribes.  As a result, these tribes would constantly raid each other to procure humans for sacrifice. This minimized or eliminated the chance of an alliance between the tribes.  (Sounds like the current effort to keep the Left in power by dividing people over race and gender issues.)

    In 1487, five years before Columbus discovered America, “Templo Mayor” was dedicated in the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation with the lowest estimate at 4,000. 

    It is hard to know how many Aztecs died under the sacrificial knife. Many reputable scholars today put the number between 20,000 and 250,000 per year for the whole Aztec Empire.  (Hitler, Mao and Stalin would have been proud of the Aztecs.)

    Indigenous People Day would not be complete without mentioning the Incas of Peru.  Although a little less bloodthirsty than Aztecs, the Incas had enslaved other indigenous people along the Andes.

    Human sacrifices were practiced by the Incas to ward off danger, famine or an epidemic. The victims were usually children, sometimes men and virgins.  (Apparently, virgins have been sacrificial favorites, everywhere.) 

    More recently, archaeologists have discovered a site in northern Peru of mass child sacrifice. About 550 years ago, over 140 children were probably sacrificed on a site known as Huanchaquito-Las Llamas.  Later, the number of sacrificed children’s remains found rose to 269, with the discovery of another nearby site. 

    An interesting aspect of the Inca Empire is described in the book “A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru” by Louis Baudin.  (The Incas would make Stalin, Mao and Fidel proud.)  Baudin writes that the regime imposed by the Inca rulers on the indigenous populations they had enslaved was a precursor of Marxist-style socialism.  Private property and individual initiative were prohibited.  Money and commerce did not exist.  Private life was subject to tough state regulation: people had to dress in a similar way; marriage was allowed only following the eugenic laws of the state, to avoid “racial contamination”.  Like any tyrannical system of this type, it was oppressive and didn’t work, so much so that the subjugated indigenous peoples enthusiastically helped the few Spaniards who came to get rid of it.  (Sounds like the Incas deserve the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood award for eugenics.) 

    So, the Aztecs and Incas enslaved other indigenous peoples.   Well, at least they weren’t racists.          

    It’s lucky for those Indigenous Peoples that they weren’t “White European Heritage Peoples” or the ‘Woke’ would demand that they lose their new holiday because they practiced slavery.  To be fair, just about every peoples have practiced slavery; European, Asian, African and indigenous American. 

    If the holiday had to be renamed, again, the “woke” would demand that it honor someone who did not practice slavery or cannibalism; that, of course, would eliminate just about every race and country in the history of the world. 

    But if you wanted to name it for someone who did not practice human sacrifice or cannibalism, Christopher Columbus is available.

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

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

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

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software