SCOPE NY

frontlines

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 06/30/2022 11:40 AM | Anonymous

    'Briefly' . . .  The Recent SCOTUS Decision Explained  Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 29, 2022 by Dean Weingarten

    Supreme Court Upholds Gun Rights Outside of the Home, Let’s Break It Down

    The opinion by Justice Thomas is relatively simple. The Constitution must be interpreted as what it meant to the people who ratified it in 1791.

    It is so ordered!

    The dissent starts on page 84. The dissent by Breyer Starts with a false use of the English language:
    This opinion should go far in restoring Second Amendment rights.  However, Progressive judges are persistent and inventive in finding ways to justify the positions they wish to take.

    The Supreme Court opinion on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was released on June 22, 2022. It is a 6 to 3 opinion, which upholds the Second Amendment as applying outside the home and rebukes Circuit Courts for creating an unnecessarily complicated two step process in applying Second Amendment protection to statutes. The opinion is 135 pages long.

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, and Justice Barrett in concurring opinions. Justice Alito and Barrett concur in full. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts simply concur.

    Looking at history can aid in the understanding, but what was meant at the time of ratification is key. In addition, the Second Amendment became applicable to state governments with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, so what was meant by the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of ratification is also important.

    Justice Thomas cites Caetano v. Massachusetts as one way the Court has adopted the Second Amendment to modern realities.

    Thomas clarifies all parties agree the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The respondents, who try to defend the New York “may issue” law, attempt to render the Second Amendment meaningless, by giving state authorities the power to decide who the Second Amendment applies, on a case-by-case basis.

    Quotes from the opinion show Thomas correctly points out Second Amendment rights apply to ordinary, law-abiding adults. From Page 3 :

    It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects.

    and

    Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

    On page 4, Thomas explains the requirement for states to show their law is Constitutional.

    The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

    This is important because it sets the standard for states which are attempting to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. They have the burden of showing a widespread historical precedent for their proposed law.  The precedent has to be greater than what existed for the Sullivan law.

    On page 11 Thomas mentions, specifically, six states which fail the test. According to the decision, six states require some special need beyond that of ordinary citizens for self defense. Those states are:

    California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. The District of Columbia is mentioned, with the caveat the law there has been enjoined by the lower court for several years.  The laws in those states, by being mentioned, appear to this correspondent, to have been effectively struck down.

    On page 14, Justice Thomas goes on to strike down the ridiculously complicated “two-step” framework which has become common to interpret the Second Amendment in several Circuit courts.

    In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

    Today, we decline to adopt that two part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

    On page 59, Justice  Thomas recounts of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, to protect the freed slaves and to ensure their right to arms.

    On page 64, Thomas states late 19th-century regulation should bear little weight compared to earlier evidence.

    As we suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.

    On page 66, Justice Thomas dismisses the Kansas court understanding of the Second Amendment in 1901 as clearly erroneous:

    For example, the Kansas Supreme Court uphelda complete ban on public carry enacted by the city of Salinain 1901 based on the rationale that the Second Amendment protects only “the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.” Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 232, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905). That was clearly erroneous.

    On page 68, Justice Thomas explains the limitations on the carry of arms are few and not broadly applied.

    Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.

    Continuing on page 69, Justice Thomas explains the Second Amendment is due all the same respect as the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

    The Second Amendment is not a Second Class Constitutional Right. It deserves the same respect as the First Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment. The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

    Finally, Justice Thomas strikes down the New York law as unconstitutional.

    New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    Justice Alito writes a concurring opinion, starting on page 75.

    I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

    On page 77, he explains the thrust of the dissent. His explanation is similar to what this writer has written, many times

    Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dis-sent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not re-arguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

    Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.

    Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

    On page 79, Kavanaugh joins with Roberts in concurring. They do not say they concur “in full”. They list the many ways the Second Amendment may still be regulated. It is disappointing, but their concurrence does not carry as much weight as does Thomas’ opinion.

    On page 83, Barret concurs in full, and warns against using Reconstruction Era history in interpreting the Second Amendment. She notes the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

    “In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.”

    The basis for nearly all “gun control” legislation is the transference of motive and volition from people to an inanimate object. The correct English usage is: Americans were killed with firearms, not by firearms.

    Justice Breyer goes on to claim the Constitution does not place certain things outside of government power to do. He complains about the majority opinion thus, on Page 85:

    It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests maybe. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.

    Justice Breyer is mistaken. One of the clear purposes of the Constitution is to place certain things outside of government power. A core philosophical building block of Progressive thought is limits on governmental power are bad. This is not the philosophy the Constitution was based upon.

    Breyer simply contends the majorities interpretation of historical law is wrong. He supplies the minorities’ interpretation.

    It is difficult to see how even the Ninth Circuit can uphold the Hawaii licensing scheme in Young v. Hawaii, or the bans on magazines over 10 rounds or bans on so-called “assault weapons” in California, when those items have already been ruled to be covered by the Second Amendment.

    This opinion does not end the fight for restoring Second Amendment rights. It moves us along the path toward full restoration.

  • 06/23/2022 6:26 PM | Anonymous

    Full text of the Supreme Court's decision on the NYSRPA vs Bruen case (Pdf)

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

  • 06/23/2022 12:12 PM | Anonymous

    Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, making it easier for Americans to carry handguns  John Fritze, USA TODAY

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the New York law "prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms."

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated a New York law that requires state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun, a decision that could make it easier for millions of Americans to arm themselves in public as the nation is reeling from a string of mass shootings.

    Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. 

    The case was among the most closely watched this term on a docket full of culture war issues such as abortion, religious freedom and climate change. The decision had the potential to shift the landscape on Second Amendment rights at a time when Americans remain divided over access to guns.

    "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms," Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by five other conservative justices.

    The decision landed weeks after an 18-year-old gunman, armed with an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, fatally shot 19 children and two teachers at a school in Texas. Another 18-year-old has been charged in the May 14 killing of 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Four others were killed June 1 in a shooting at an Oklahoma medical facility.

    The shootings prompted a response from the other two branches of government. A bipartisan group of senators this week revealed the text of a sweeping gun reform package that, if passed, could end decades of partisan gridlock and inaction on the issue. 

    In a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal justices, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer started by writing that 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020 and that gun violence has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.

    "Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds," Breyer wrote. "The court today severely burdens states’ efforts to do so."

    More than a decade ago, the high court ruled that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess guns in their homes settling a debate over whether the Constitution guaranteed that right only for individuals or militias. But the court left unanswered whether the same right exists beyond a home's front door.  

    At issue is a New York law that requires residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun – in other words, a need for a permit greater than the general public. Two upstate New York residents, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, sued when a county licensing official denied them the carry privileges they sought.

    The court's decision was celebrated by gun rights groups.

    "Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home."

    Gun control groups, on the other hand, asserted it would increase violence.

    "Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. "Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country."

    During the course of a two-hour oral argument in November, it seemed clear a majority favored striking down New York's law. The real question in the case is the scope of the court's ruling and how many similar gun regulations it will affect across the nation. 

    At least six other Democratic-led states – including California, Maryland and New Jersey – have licensing regimes similar to New York's. Together, those states represent about a quarter of the nation's population.

    The justices wrestled with the limits on the right to carry a gun in public, and whether those limits should be more pronounced in densely populated places, such as New York City. They peppered the plaintiffs with hypotheticals about whether New York could ban handguns on the New York City subway or in Yankee Stadium. What about on college campuses or at bars?

    Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that other states, including those with large cities, have more permissive gun regulations without major consequences. But the court's liberal justices pushed back on that assertion, arguing that the city of Chicago is case in point for how more guns can lead to spiraling crime rates. 

    "I mean, most people think that Chicago is, like, the world's worst city with respect to gun violence," Associate Justice Elena Kagan said at the time. "Chicago doesn't think that, but everybody else thinks it about Chicago."

    Much was made of the court's decision last year to hear the case, in part because the justices had turned away other Second Amendment appeals for years and also because they seemed to pump the brakes on culture war issues more generally. Since then, the 6-3 conservative court has agreed to revisit abortionaffirmative action policies in college admissions and the extent to which states may consider race when they draw political boundaries, such as congressional districts. 

    Argument:Supreme Court skeptical of law that limits carrying handguns in public

    History:A 700-year-old law may inform Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision

    President Joe Biden's administration, which supported New York in the suit, said at least six other states have similar laws. A federal district court in New York dismissed the challenge to the New York permitting scheme in 2018, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision.


  • 06/21/2022 6:47 PM | Anonymous

    An easy refresher on the Constitution and 2nd Amendment

    5 minutes and 18 seconds video.

    Gun Control for Dummies - It's Common Sense - YouTube

  • 06/05/2022 1:11 PM | Anonymous

    Here is a list of gun control bills which were passed in New York State during the 2022 legislative session:

    List of gun control bills which passed in 2022.

    • A-1023A/S-4970A, Requires the creation and imposition of restrictive commercial practices and stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun and ammunition sales to individuals with a criminal record.
    • A-3998/S-687, Clarifies the definition of imitation weapon.
    • A-7926A/S-4116A, Requires semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition.
    • A-8102A/S-6363A, Requires the court to order the search for and immediate seizure of certain firearms when a defendant willfully refuses to surrender such firearms.
    • A-8735/S-7760, Requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to publish quarterly reports providing information related to firearms, rifles and shotguns used in the commission of crimes in the state of New York.
    • A-8736/S-7796, Amends the definition of a “disguised gun” to include any firearms designed and intended to appear to be a toy gun.
    • A-8741/S-7736, Amends the “Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act” relating to unserialized frames or receivers.
    • A-8786/S-7705, Criminalizes the sale of ghost guns; requires any person licensed as a gunsmith or a dealer in firearms to register with the Division of Criminal Justice Services any unserialized firearm, rifle or shotgun, finished frame or receiver, or unfinished frame or receiver.
    • A-8846/S-7716, Relates to the Firearm Violence Research Institute; makes technical changes to the institute’s procedures, goals and activities.
    • A-10428A/S-9229A, Relates to the definition of large capacity ammunition feeding device for purposes of the offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; and repeals section 265.36 of the penal law.
    • A-10497/S-9407B, Relates to the unlawful purchase and the unlawful sale or delivery of a body vest.
    • A-10502/S-9113A, Authorizes certain health care providers to file an application for an Extreme Risk Protection Order against a person examined by such health care provider in certain circumstances.
    • A-10503/S-9458, Relates to the purchase or taking possession of a semiautomatic rifle; requires a license to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle; establishes the crimes of criminal purchase of a semiautomatic rifle and criminal sale of a semiautomatic rifle; requires recertification of licenses to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle every five years.
    • A-10504/S-9456, Relates to defining firearm; provides that the term firearm shall also include any other weapon that is not otherwise defined containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of explosive
  • 05/19/2022 8:58 AM | Anonymous

    How The Buffalo Mass Shooter Got Exactly What He Wanted   by Colion Noir

    Right now, America is being trolled by an 18 year old psychopath and he has a front row seat to the show.

    Everything this guy did was designed to get media attention and drive the biggest divide possible by placating to every talking point the anti-gun far left has.

    He left an 180 page manifesto, that’s a book.

    He even wrote it in question and answer form like he was being interviewed and he made it a point to answer every question you’d think to ask someone who just slaughtered people in cold blood and hit every single possible racist talking point, and then says all his radicalization happened online during COVID.

    He explains why he chose the weapons he used using every single anti-gun buzz word used by the anti-gun lobby. Hell it sounded like they wrote it for him.

    Then he literally scribbles every racist word or phrase he could think of on the guns he used and then to top it all off, this walking human fart of a lunatic live streamed the entire massacre.

    He packaged together an online mass shooting starter kit, gave it to the media and said make me famous and make me some more mass shooters and the media said “Ok”. 

    On May 13, 2022 nobody knew who the hell this kid was, but by May 14th, he was the most famous person in the world and by May 15th,  we knew every thought and desire he had because they were combing through his 180 page written self interview like it was some long lost text from the communist manifesto.

    He created a snuff film and it got passed around like it was the the missing Ray J and Kim Kardashian sex tape.

    It’s not like the footage was caught on surveillance cameras, he live streamed it.

    Now I can’t go on the internet without seeing videos of him in court, articles about what we know about the shooter, who was his mama, and what did he eat that day.

    Then to make themselves feel better about sensationalizing a clout chasing psychopath, the media sprinkles a couple videos about the people who were actually killed.

    We gave him exactly what he wanted, the same thing I’ve been saying for 9 years now:

    He wanted to solidify himself as the architect of how to become more famous than ever by committing mass shootings and it worked!

    This guy was nothing more than a copycat.

    His 180 page manifesto was mostly plagiarized from another mass shooters manifesto and video of a mass shooting that he only knew about because, of course, the media sensationalized and made that guy famous.

    He literally says that the previous shooters live stream is what started everything you see here https://www.jpost.com/international/article-706733.

    He wanted infamy he just used his new found racism to justify his actions. This was about him and making himself famous.

    He saw a playbook and copied it. Nothing he did was original, nothing he said, was original.

    He simply wanted to amass the highest body count, using the most infamous gun so that the media would talk about it, making him infamous for eternity because now anytime there’s a mass shooting his name will come up and he decided not to kill himself because he realized it would be better to live to see and experience the fame instead of dying.

    Now he’ll end up in prison and be taken in and protected by the other racist gangs in prison who hate black people and praise him for what he did.

    Congratulations to Americas Mainstream you did it again.

    You made another sociopathic low life famous for killing a bunch of people and inspired future shooters in the process.

    Especially now considering we are living at the height of clout chasing, where people eat laundry detergent for views.

    This is no different, except the clout chaser is an evil psychopath who was chasing clout with a gun in his hands.

    I promise you, if he thought no one would talk about him, mention his name or watch his disgusting little live snuff stream, he wouldn’t have done this because his motivation was attention and we just gave it to him in spades and then wonder why we keep having these copy cat mass shootings.

    And of course, right on cue here comes the anti-gun lobby and their anti-gun politician exploiting this shooting to push gun control.

    Here’s the irony the shooter said he chose to: “carry it out in New York due to its strict open carry gun laws, which would make it harder for someone to stop him.” https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooter-saw-new-yorks-gun-laws-his-advantage-1706982.

    And the irony gets even worse, right now there is a case in the supreme court named New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen where the supreme court is deciding if New York’s denial of applications for concealed carry licenses for self defense violates the second amendment.

    Anyone want to take a guess how the mayor of New York feels about a potential ruling that would make it easier for New York citizens to carry guns for their safety?

    Especially after a mass shooter just shot up a grocery store in New York because he knew the likely hood of someone carrying a gun was low and if someone was, they’d likely be limited in their capacity to deal with him because of New York’s gun-laws.

    And I quote: “We Should Be Very Afraid, ” Mayor Eric Adams Said. In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us. https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-new-york-guns-concealed-carry/11857751/

    This is not rocket science, shooters like these are cowards looking for easy targets. 

    That’s why he didn’t run down the block trying to shoot street dudes in that area, he knows the street dudes in the hood don’t care about New York’s gun laws, they all have guns with as many rounds as they want and they wouldn’t call the police.

    They’d leave him out there in the street to rot and instead of watching a livestream of a coward shooting unarmed innocent people, we’d be watching the livestream death of loser.

    Body armor and an AR-15 doesn’t make you immortal.

    When you have other people shooting back at you, it changes everything, you go from “I’m to kill everyone in this place” to “oh shit I’m being shot at” and that shifts the focus away from killing unarmed innocent people to the people shooting at you giving the unarmed people time to escape.

    That security guard may have lost his life, but because the shooter had to deal with the security guard shooting at him in the first place, there’s no telling how many lives he saved just by having a gun.

    Long story short, gun control create victims not safety.


  • 04/26/2022 1:31 PM | Anonymous

    These 10 Incidents Highlight Importance of Second Amendment for Women  by Abby Kassal

    Key Takeaways:

    • 1. Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.
    • 2. To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.
    • 3. No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

    Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.

    To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.

    No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

    Spring 2022 Member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation

    Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property.

    To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women.

    No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

    Since 1987, the United States has recognized March as Women’s History Month to celebrate the vital role of women in American history. Unfortunately, far too often we find that the armed women of history are overlooked or completely forgotten, and the vital role of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women is ignored.

    Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property—from Harriet Tubman, the famed “conductor” of the underground railroad who was known to carry loaded pistols, to Mary “Stagecoach Mary” Fields, the first black woman to be a mail carrier, who notoriously kept a .38 revolver in her apron to fend off bandits and wild animals alike.

    Tubman and Fields haven’t been alone.

    Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

    To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women, either because they were armed or because another armed person came to their defense.

    The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in March. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database

    • March 1, Atlanta: Five teens—at least two armed—tried to carjack a woman as she sat in her vehicle, police said. The woman drew her own gun and exchanged fire with the would-be carjackers, who fled. Although she was injured, her car was not stolen. Police said they arrested the teens just hours later, after a police chase in which they crashed a car stolen during a second carjacking.
    • March 4, Longview, Texas: A woman armed with a rifle shot and wounded a man who forced his way inside her home, police said. The woman had told the man—who neighbors say had a history of criminally trespassing in area homes—to get off her porch. But he refused and tried to smash in her sliding glass door with his fist, according to police, who arrested the wounded man. The county sheriff praised the woman’s actions as “an excellent example of the importance of our Second Amendment.”
    • March 5, Lincolnton, North Carolina: Police said a woman’s estranged husband showed up at the residence where she was staying, forced his way inside, and threatened her and the male homeowner. During the altercation, the homeowner retrieved a firearm from a bedroom and shot the intruder in self-defense before running to a neighbor’s home to call 911. Police charged the wounded husband with multiple crimes.
    • March 9, Nashville, Tennessee: After her boyfriend physically assaulted her earlier in the day, a woman returned to their shared home to gather her belongings and retrieve her three young children, police said. A female friend accompanied her for support. When they arrived, the boyfriend argued with the woman, then assaulted her again. She saw that he was armed, so she drew her own gun and exchanged fire with him in self-defense. The woman, her friend, and the boyfriend were all injured, but the three children weren’t harmed, police said. The boyfriend faces several felony charges, including being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm.
    • March 10, Dayton, Ohio: A woman’s ex-boyfriend ignored a protective order against him, scaled the roof of her home in the middle of the night, and tried to climb through her bedroom window, police said. When the woman heard the intruder, she grabbed a firearm to protect herself and her daughter and shot the man in the arm as he descended into her bedroom. She told police she realized it was her ex-boyfriend as he ran from the house. He was arrested later that day after calling paramedics for his gunshot wound, and faces several criminal charges.
    • March 16, Reading, Pennsylvania: A woman and her boyfriend were about to get into their car at a local park when a man approached them and fired two rounds, police said. The woman drew her own gun and shot back, giving her wounded boyfriend time to take cover behind their car. Police later arrested their assailant and charged him with attempted homicide and unlawfully possessing a gun as a felon.
    • March 22, Orlando, Florida: A female veteran working as an Uber driver arrived at a customer’s pick-up location and saw him physically assaulting his girlfriend, police said. The driver decided to give them a ride despite the man’s violent actions because she didn’t want to leave the girlfriend alone with her assailant. When the couple got into the car, the man passed out drunk in the back seat while the Uber driver spoke with the girlfriend. When the man woke up and assaulted both his girlfriend and the driver, police said, the driver stopped the car and demanded that he get out. The driver shot and wounded the man after he shoved his girlfriend to the ground and advanced on the driver in a threatening manner.
    • March 23, Paradise, Nevada: A woman was with her boyfriend and three children when an ex-boyfriend broke into their home, police said. The woman armed herself and called 911, and the ex-boyfriend left. However, he returned a short time later armed with his own gun, which he pointed at the current boyfriend’s head. The woman fired one shot, striking him in the head and killing him, police said. No one else was harmed.
    • March 24, Lansing, Michigan: When a man with two prior convictions for domestic violence began assaulting a woman inside her  home, police said,  her son came to her defense, shooting and wounding her attacker. Police arrested him at a nearby hospital. The woman was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.
    • March 25, Montgomery, Alabama: When a woman called police after being assaulted by her husband, officers advised her to pursue a protective order against him. The woman was on her way to the police station with her two adult sons when the husband rammed his car into hers, drove them off the road, and approached them while brandishing a handgun. One son, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, told his brother and mother to run when his father opened fire. Despite being shot five times, the son was able to draw his own gun and fatally shoot his father before anyone else was harmed. He was hospitalized in critical condition, but expected to survive.

    Some gun control advocates like to claim that the Second Amendment was written by and for men, and that it leaves women to suffer as victims of gun violence.

    But these claims ignore the countless cases such as the ones above, where the right to keep and bear arms was used by women or for the sake of protecting women—often from male aggressors against whom an unarmed woman would have been effectively helpless.

    Women’s History Month may be over, but the importance of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women continues every day of the year.

    No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

    This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

  • 04/19/2022 10:42 AM | Anonymous

    By Dave Workman of Guns Magazine        By tradition, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) holds its most controversial rulings until the final days of the session, which wraps up later this month, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen will not be the last battle.

    Certainly, an affirmative ruling — meaning a decision by the court to nullify the long-standing “good cause” requirement for carry permits in New York State — would be shattering not only for anti-gun-rights Empire State bureaucrats, but for similarly empowered people in states with similar requirements. We’re talking about New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, Delaware (Joe Biden’s home state), Connecticut and Massachusetts. A favorable outcome would strengthen the Second Amendment, but it won’t be the last word.

    If the high court strikes down the New York requirement, as many anticipate at this writing, the other states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. Demagoguery dies hard and bureaucrats hate to give up any power they have over the public, especially involving the exercise of the right to bear arms, as well as keep them.

    What’s at stake here is not just the rights of people involved in the lawsuit, but the generations of citizens whose rights have been violated by these laws and who never had the chance for relief. Nobody has ever talked about this because it’s an inconvenient truth. If the law is found unconstitutional, it has always been so. We can’t retroactively hold all of those people accountable who enforced the laws in decades past but we can put candidates and incumbents on the spot to make sure we vote against anybody who thinks the right needs to be restricted.

    Experience following the high court ruling against Chicago’s handgun ban in June 2010 suggests New York officials will scramble to figure out just how far they can push the envelope with revised restrictions, and still comply.

    An affirmative Second Amendment ruling — if that’s what the court delivers — will come right in the middle of campaign season leading up to the 2022 midterm elections. You’ve got only a few months to mobilize, get behind candidates who will flip power in Congress and in state legislatures around the country. This year provides an opportunity to stage a peaceful revolution by putting anti-gun politicians out of work, allowing pro-rights officials to right the wrongs of the past 18 months and maybe decades in those states with restrictive gun laws.

  • 04/11/2022 10:28 AM | Anonymous

    Biden’s New ATF Nominee: Worse than David Chipman!  by Don Smith

    Last year, gun owners across America stood up and rejected David Chipman’s nomination to run the scandal-ridden ATF.  Now, we’re going to have to do it again.

    According to several sources, Biden’s handlers are about to nominate Steve Dettelbach as the new director of the ATF. And if you thought that Chipman was the worst nominee possible, I’ve got bad news for you: Steve Dettelbach is even worse!  

    There is no time to waste, as Biden’s team is trying to rally support for Dettelbach behind closed doors as we speak. Please call our NY senators and express your strong opposition against this left-wing activist immediately!
    Chairman Wayne County SCOPE

    1.Contact Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D) 

    DC Phone Number: 202-224-6542 (you will need to leave a message)

    Contact: https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck

    2.Contact Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 

    DC Phone Number: 202-224-4451 (you may need to leave a message)

    Contact: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/email-me

    Dettelbach was a former candidate for Ohio Attorney General (and a former United State Attorney during the Obama Administration). Dettelbach has made gun control a core part of his public image and is on the record in support of:

    >>> A total ban on the sale of AR-15s and hundreds of similar firearms, along with the magazines that we need to run them. To be clear, Dettelbach supports bringing felony charges against law abiding Americans who buy these rifles!

    >>> Establishing a national registry of every firearm and every gun owner under the guise of ‘Universal Background Checks.’ The left wants this data to lay the groundwork for eventual gun confiscation!

    >>> Putting gun owners with a variety of misdemeanor convictions on the ‘prohibited persons’ NICS list. Once we go down this road and put non-felons into NICS, millions of gun owners will be disarmed!

    Dettelbach also supports seizing guns from people who are seeking help for mental health difficulties, but who have never been adjudicated as defective. This sounds like the ‘unsafe’ act. 

    Dettelbach’s commitment to the left’s gun control agenda is why Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety backed him when he ran for Attorney General in Ohio in 2018 -- and why he received the personal endorsement of Barack Obama and Joe Biden! 

    Last Last year, gun owners across America stood up and rejected David Chipman’s nomination to run the scandal-ridden ATF.  Now, we’re going to have to do it again.

    According to several sources, Biden’s handlers are about to nominate Steve Dettelbach as the new director of the ATF. And if you thought that Chipman was the worst nominee possible, I’ve got bad news for you: Steve Dettelbach is even worse!  

    There is no time to waste, as Biden’s team is trying to rally support for Dettelbach behind closed doors as we speak. Please call our NY senators and express your strong opposition against this left-wing activist immediately!

    Don Smith,  Chairman Wayne County SCOPE
    don6027@gmail.com

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”   — Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

  • 03/21/2022 10:43 AM | Anonymous

    Zeldin, Hochul Secure Spots On Primary Ballot: The 2022 campaign for governor of New York is underway.  03/19/2022 / Albany Update     

    Gov. Kathy Hochul is the Democratic Party’s designated candidate for governor this year. The Party selected Gov. Hochul at the New York State Democratic Convention on February 17, 2022, when the Governor amassed 85.6% of the weighted vote. U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY3) and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams are also seeking the Democratic nomination, with Rep. Suozzi running as a moderate problem-solver and Public Advocate Williams running as a progressive with the support of the Working Families Party. Because Rep. Suozzi and Public Advocate Williams did not receive enough votes at the Democratic Convention to get onto the primary ballot, each candidate will try to gain ballot access by obtaining the signatures of 15,000 Democratic voters. As of mid-January, Gov. Hochul had amassed a record-setting $21.6 million in campaign donations.

    On March 16, 2022, CNBC reported that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo is also considering running for governor this year. Cuomo began this year with $16 million in his campaign account and has spent $2 million on advertisements in an effort to regain public support. Earlier this month, a poll showed Cuomo trailing Hochul by a narrow 37%-33% margin amongst Democratic voters, with Rep. Suozzi receiving 7% support and Public Advocate Williams receiving 4%. However, the same poll showed that 59% of all New York voters believe that the results of Attorney General Letitia James’s investigation into Cuomo were accurate; in addition, 63% of all New York voters do not believe Cuomo should hold public office again. Recently, when asked whether he would consider creating his own political party line to facilitate a gubernatorial campaign, Cuomo replied: “‘I’ve done it before. My father’s done it before.’”

    On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY1) received the Party’s support for governor on March 1, 2022 at the New York Republican Convention. Eighty-five percent of convention delegates voted for Rep. Zeldin. Former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino and businessman Harry Wilson each received the support of 7% of delegates, while former White House staffer Andrew Giuliani received the support of less than 1%. Astorino, Giuliani, and Wilson each must gather 15,000 signatures to gain ballot access. As of January 2022, Rep. Zeldin had raised $8.4 million in campaign contributions. On March 14, 2022, Rep. Zeldin’s campaign released the results of a poll showing him leading Gov. Hochul, 45.5%-44%; a poll taken earlier in March showed Gov. Hochul leading Rep. Zeldin, 50%-35%.

    If necessary, primary elections for governor will be held on June 28, 2022. In anticipation of those potential primaries, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms has begun hosting candidate spotlights with candidates who have secured a place on a major party ballot. At our March 15, 2022 Digital Day of Action, NYCF welcomed Rep. Lee Zeldin for an interview; video of that interview is available here. We hope that Gov. Hochul and other potential candidates will also join us for interviews as the campaign continues.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 

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