frontlines

Court to take up major gun-rights case  by Amy Howe, on Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50 am

Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

The announcement came just one day short of one year after the court’s ruling in a different challenge brought by the same gun-rights group. That case involved New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban before the case reached the Supreme Court, a majority of the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims were moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case should return to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun-rights rulings, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh urged the court to “address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari” then pending before the justices, several of which involved the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.

Shortly after issuing that decision, the court distributed for consideration at its May 1, 2020, conference 10 gun rights cases that they had put on hold while the New York City case was pending. The justices considered those cases at six consecutive conferences before finally denying review in all 10 of them in June.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up at least one of the 10 cases. In an opinion that was joined in part by Kavanaugh, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court would likely grant review if a law required someone to show a good reason before exercising her right to free speech or to seek an abortion. However, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court had opted to “simply look[] the other way” when “faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

There is no way to know why the justices turned down the petitions for review last year. Commentators speculated that some conservative justices may not have been confident that Chief Justice John Roberts would provide a fifth vote to expand gun rights. However, since then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose vote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests that she might take a broader approach to the Second Amendment.

2021 SCOPE Member Meeting

At SCOPE’s Members’ Meeting on May 8th, State Senator Tom O'Mara will be speaking.  Mr. O'Mara represents New York’s 58^th Senate District which encompasses all of Chemung, Schuyler, Yates and Steuben Counties and part of Tompkins County.

As previously announced, Congressman and Governor candidate Lee Zeldin will also be speaking. 

Other potential speakers will be announced when confirmed.

Our 2021 Annual SCOPE Member Meeting will be held on
Saturday, May 8th @ 10:00 AM

Montour Falls Moose Lodge
2096 State Route 14  Montour Falls, NY 14865  

The meeting is open to all SCOPE members in good standing.
You must RSVP

Lunch will be provided
*COVID Restrictions require masks inside the Lodge*

CLICK HERE FOR RSVP FORM

Please mail your RSVP: Postmarked NO later than April 24th: TO
S.C.O.P.E. Member Meeting
P.O. Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

2021 SCOPE Member Meeting

    Members Meeting Special Announcement

At SCOPE’s Members’ Meeting, Congressman Lee Zeldin will be speaking.  Mr. Zeldin represents
New York’s 1^st Congressional District on Long Island and is a potential Republican candidate for Governor in 2022. 

Other potential speakers will be announced when confirmed

Saturday, May 8th @ 10:00 AM

at the

Montour Falls Moose Lodge    2096 State Route 14  Montour Falls, NY 1

The meeting is open to all SCOPE members in good standing.
You must RSVP

Lunch will be provided

*COVID Restrictions require masks inside the Lodge*

CLICK HERE FOR RSVP FORM

Please mail your RSVP: 

" The Shot Heard Around the World"   On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began in the villages of Lexington and Concord near Boston, Massachusetts.

The previous night saw 700 British troops march out of Boston with orders to seize any colonial weapons they might find. By dawn the next morning they had reached Lexington, where they found about 75 American minutemen waiting for them on the village green. “Don’t fire unless fired upon,” Captain Jonas Parker ordered the Patriots, “but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!”

The British commander ordered the Americans to lay down their arms. “You damned rebels, disperse!” he cried, and the outnumbered colonists grudgingly began to drift away. Suddenly someone  fired a shot – no one knows who – and the surprised British ranks let loose a volley. A few seconds later, eight dead and ten wounded minutemen lay on Lexington Green.

The redcoats continued up the road to Concord, where hundreds of Americans had gathered. Another small battle ensued before the British decided that it was time to return to Boston.

Then the real fighting began. The road back to Lexington became a nightmarish gauntlet of deadly fire for the redcoats as the Americans lay in ambush behind trees, rocks, and woodpiles. The  helpless British columns endured the sniping nearly all the way back to Boston.

When the day was over, about 250 of the king’s men had been killed or wounded. The colonists lost about 90. News of the conflict caused militiamen all over New England to shoulder their muskets and tramp toward Boston. The struggle for independence had begun. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his famous poem “Concord Hymn,” the Americans had “fired the shot heard ’round the world.”

New poll demonstrates that Americans are not divided on “party lines” on gun issues.

POLL REAFFIRMS THAT OVER 70% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS, APRIL 15, 2021 ROB PINCUS | 2AO EVP

Second Amendment Foundation commissioned this research and, not surprisingly, it confirms that most Americans respect and want to protect individual gun rights.

“Based on these survey results, anti-gunners, including Joe Biden, should cool their zeal for passing new legislation,” Alan M Gottlieb observed. “Over 72 percent of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms. Over 73 percent agree the Second Amendment is one of our most important and cherished rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. And more than 58 percent say they are likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports the right to keep and bear arms.”

You can learn more about the Poll and what it tells us here in this article at the Outdoor Wire.
Abolishing the Second Amendment isn’t a viable option.

There is a false narrative being spread by fear mongerers on both sides of the “gun debate” in this country. The truth is that most people want our communities to be safer AND respect individual liberties. Most gun owners have firearms expressly to be safer and most of us exercise our rights responsibly.  There is no “culture war” over protecting our neighborhoods and loved ones. 

There is a reason that the gun grabbers don’t go after the Second Amendment directly: they know they could never abolish it. The majority of Americans, including people from every political party, race, creed, lifestyle and economic bracket, support the individual right to keep and bear arms for protection… as they should. The diversity amongst gun owners can be seen in every facet of firearms related activities, from competition shooting to training for armed defense and from hunting to gun rights advocacy.

This poll, which you can see in its entirety HERE,  reaffirms a position that 2AO has always held:  Americans generally cherish individual freedoms and are not anti-gun. There isn’t a significant portion of our population that wants to take away guns or abolish the Second Amendment. We believe that gun control should be removed from the agenda of any major American Political Party. Surely, there are many who “support gun rights” who are not absolutists. These fellow citizens who in the middle ground on guns are our allies in the fight to protect our right to keep and bear arms. This is why we believe that grassroots advocacy is incredibly important. With continued demonstration that the gun community has a sincere dedication to reducing negative outcomes involving firearms, reasoned dialogue, outreach and educational advocacy, we will continue to regain lost rights and bring more people into the community.

-Rob Pincus, -Executive Vice President, 2AO

One day, as Marine Corporal Jason Dunham and his buddies swapped talk in their barracks in Iraq, the conversation turned to the best way to survive a hand grenade attack. The corporal suggested covering a grenade with a Kevlar helmet. “I’ll bet a Kevlar would stop it,” he said.

Dunham, raised in the small town of Scio, New York, was a 22-year-old with a natural gift for leadership. He’d been a star athlete, setting a Scio Central School baseball record for highest batting average. Now a rifle squad leader, he’d extended his enlistment to stay with his comrades in Iraq.

On April 14, 2004, Dunham was on his way to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in western Iraq when an insurgent leaped from a car and attacked him. As two Marines rushed to help wrestle the man to the ground, they heard Dunham yell, “No, no, no – watch his hand!” Before they realized what was happening, Dunham threw his helmet and his own body over a live enemy grenade.

The sacrifice helped contain the blast but left Dunham mortally wounded. He died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

In January 2007 President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Jason Dunham. “Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men, and showed the world what it means to be a Marine,” the president said. He was the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq.

Journalist Michael Phillips, author of The Gift of Valor, wrote that shortly before leaving for the Persian Gulf, Dunham told friends of his plans to extend his enlistment. “You’re crazy for extending,” a fellow Marine had said. “Why?”

“I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive,” Jason Dunham answered.

Copied from Bill Bennett's "The American Patriot Daily Almanac"
Click here for the original web version

Carrying Guns in Public Is Not a  Constitutional Right, Ninth Circuit Rules

And so now it becomes "ripe for Supreme Court review."

The majority of an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry firearms outside the home.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Americans have no right to carry guns in public, a divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday, reversing a prior Ninth Circuit decision that struck down a Hawaii firearm restriction as unconstitutional.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.

“The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.

In July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

“Heller found that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is not a right to ‘carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Bybee wrote for the majority.

Young had argued that Hawaii’s 169-year-old law impermissibly limited open-carry permits to security guards, as applied in regulations adopted by the County of Hawaii in 1997.

During oral arguments last September, a lawyer representing the Aloha State said the law does not limit open-carry licenses to security guards. He cited the Hawaii Attorney General’s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.”

The state says the attorney general’s 2018 guidance overrides the county’s 1997 regulation that ostensibly limits open-carry licenses to security guards.

Despite that argument, O’Scannlain found the fact that the 1997 regulation remains “on the books” and that Hawaii has never granted permits to a non-security guard civilian shows the state has been unconstitutionally restricting Second Amendment rights.

“In the County of Hawaii, the historical dearth of open-carry permits for private citizens is no mere ‘pattern or practice,’” O’Scannlain wrote. “It is a matter of official policy.”

In a concurring dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, argued the panel should have remanded the case back to district court to determine if Young could plausibly allege Hawaii’s law has been applied in an unconstitutional manner.

The failure to do so could have widespread consequences for people suing to protect their constitutional rights, he said, especially for litigants representing themselves without an attorney. Young originally filed his lawsuit pro se but was represented by lawyers in his appeal.

“It will preclude a host of future as-applied constitutional challenges under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments previously recognized by this court — especially for pro se civil rights plaintiffs,” Nelson wrote.

By upholding state laws that restrict carrying guns in public, the Ninth Circuit joined three other circuit courts that have issued similar rulings: the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit and Seventh Circuit have struck down state laws that ban carrying guns in public. That makes the dispute ripe for Supreme Court review.

Although some circuit courts have upheld restrictions on carrying guns in public, Young’s attorney Alan Beck, of San Diego, argued that no court has gone as far as the Ninth Circuit did in its en banc opinion Wednesday.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which finds the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all, contradicts the decisions of every federal circuit court in the country that has ruled on this issue,” Beck said in an email. “We will be seeking Supreme Court review in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

Bill Clinton appointees William Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas joined Bybee in the majority. Circuit Judges Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, also sided with the majority.

Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan, both George W. Bush appointees, joined O’Scannlain and Nelson in the dissent.

GREENVILLE, S.C. (WYFF) - U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Palmetto State Armory in Greenville Thursday to show his support for the Second Amendment.

Graham fired off some practice rounds at the shooting range’s indoor range with an AR-style rifle, which would be made illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban.

Graham was flanked by Mark Oliva, Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson.

“In South Carolina, we take seriously the right to bear arms, but also the responsibility that comes from owning a weapon,” Graham said at the start of his remarks.

He said the background check bills recently passed by the U.S. House go too far, citing gun sales.

The bills, passed in early March, require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and allow an expanded 10-day review for gun purchases. Similar bills were passed by the House in 2019, shortly after Democrats won the majority, but stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate for the next two years.

Graham said there is room for compromise.

“We can do something with the gun show loopholes, I think, but if you transfer a weapon to a family member, I’m not really sure how that is affected in the House bill,” Graham said.

He also said he would oppose an assault weapons ban backed by President Joe Biden if it is brought to the Senate floor, but looks forward to the debate.

“Let’s bring them all to the floor,” he said. “Let’s vote. Maybe we can find some compromise, but I want to put every United States Senator on the record as to where they stand on the Second Amendment. I think the voters in 2022 need to understand this.”

Graham told the stories of three cases that have happened in South Carolina so far this year where citizens have had to use guns to defend themselves.

• An 80-year old veteran in Aiken, whose house was being broken into and his wife was being stabbed, shot the intruder, Graham said.
• A home break-in in Iva ended with the homeowner shooting the intruder, he said.
• At a barbershop in Columbia, one of the barbers used a lawfully owned gun to stop the robbery, according to Graham.

“One of the things about our Constitution is that we understood early on that if you live in a dictatorship, or in places where the government runs everything, the first thing they take away from you is not just your speech but your ability to defend yourself,” Graham said. “That’s why the Second Amendment exists. The ability to own a gun responsibly is a constitutional right in America, and here’s what I would say: we need that right today, as much as any other time in American history.”

When asked if his comments about the need for guns for self-protection were fearmongering, Graham defended himself with what he called the president’s own words.

“Well, Joe Biden told Jill, ‘If you find yourself in a bad spot, take the rifle and scare people away,’” Graham said.

“We live in a world where law and order are breaking down all too often,” Graham said. “The bottom line is self-defense is one of the fundamental rights associated with the Second Amendment. Most people in South Carolina who buy a gun will tell you one of the reasons they have a weapon is for self-defense purposes.”

He said the “liberals” who are talking about taking people’s guns away, already have their own protection.

“It’s the liberal elite who are able to live in a security environment the average person can’t have. All the people talking about taking your guns away have armed guards around them. So I’m here to tell you, look in South Carolina this year, where three people, senior citizens, mostly, if they had not had a gun they would have been killed. Women would be raped and people would be killed time and time again without the ability to defend themselves. This is not fear-mongering. This actually happens,” Graham said.

It Failed Before: We Have 10 Years of Data on How an Assault Weapons Ban Works in America  by Dan Zimmerman, The Truth About Guns

Why so many mass shootings with AR-15s? Well first off, I care about all mass killings, not just the subset of shootings. I care about the Nice, France truck attack (86 killed), and the GermanWings suicide attack (149 killed), the Berlin Christmas Market Truck Attack (12 killed, 56 injured), the Manchester Stadium bombing (22 killed, 1000+ injured), the Boston Marathon bombing (3 killed 250+ injured), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 killed), and the Boise stabbing (3yo killed, 8 injured including 5 kids), and the Kunming stabbing (27 killed), and I care about shootings that occur even in places with strict regulations like the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, the Oslo Norway attack, and the Thalys train attack.

Even with that context, it is still worth understanding why AR-15s come up so much in US mass shootings: they’re popular. And even if you banned them all today, they would still be popular… there are 10ish million in circulation. If someone wants more than a handgun, and less than a big, heavy rifle, they are probably going to grab an AR-15 variant.

So what if we had a ban? It turns out, we already tried that. From 1994-2004, we had an “Assault Weapons Ban” which specifically targeted the AR-15 by trying to call out AR-15ie features like “a grip” a “flash hider” and a “bayonet lug.” Why do I need a bayonet lug? I don’t know, but can you explain to me why you need to take it away?

So we have 10 years of data on how a national ban works. How do you think it worked? It is tough to prove causation, but I haven’t seen anyone even make a reasonably believable case it did anything at all.

Mental Health vs. just Police Response

Is there a clean line between when a a call comes in for a behavioral health crisis, or when a situation in which police are/should be dispatched?

Times of Wayne County, LAW & ORDER

This is a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ question, depending on the circumstances.

The City of Rochester Police Department has made national news three times over the past year in cases where police actions have been deemed unsuitable for the conditions, yet rules were allegedly followed. In each case the bad publicity, civilian complaints, protests and potential lawsuits have all led to a negative picture for police.

On Saturday (3/20) at 7:20 a.m. the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office responded to a call of a psychological disorder at the Woodland Commons Apartment Complex on Route 31 in the Town of Macedon.

Upon arrival, officers found the 43 year old man barricaded in his apartment in an apparent intoxicated and agitated state threatening to do harm to himself and officers.

Due to previous contacts with the subject, additional help was requested to contain the subject and protect the large number of residents that were unable to leave the facility.

After negotiating for 8 hours, the man was taken into custody, peacefully and taken to Rochester Strong Hospital for evaluation and treatment of self inflicted injuries.

The difference between a situation out of control in the City of Rochester, or with the response in Wayne County, depends on preparation, anticipation and training for all those who respond.

The Wayne County Mental Health Department, under Director James (Jim) Haitz, launched an ambitious ‘Intervention Team’ in September of 2018, with trained professionals and mobile units on the ready for mental health responses.

Under a pilot program the Mental Health Department has also added Ipads for some sheriff’s officers allowing for on scene assessments with on duty mental health technicians, making it possible to discern situations. This is when an officer, instead of beginning an arrest, or legal matter to be turned over to the ‘Open Access’ health officials.
It is then determined whether a mental health person is dispatched to the scene, brought to the ‘Open Access’ facility, or an appointment should be made for the person under distress.

According to Chief Deputy Rob Milby, Sheriff Barry Virts saw the handwriting on the wall as police reform and questions began arising over when to divert calls to mental health.

“Sheriff Virts decided to be ahead of the curve and began progressive training for all officers,” said Milby.
Classes in anti-bias, situation de-escalation, mental health overview, diversity training were all part of professional standards, accreditation for all officers. This is in addition to the 1000 hours of training before an officer hits the road.

During the covid crisis, the ‘Open Access’ and ‘Mobile Team’ response was cut back to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. With more hires in the near future Haitz hopes to move to a 24 hour/seven days a week availability.
So, why are some city and municipalities not yet onboard with similar programs?

“We don’t like to toot our own horn” said Haitz. But his agency saw what was coming and decided to be more progressive. He added that through the existing programs and that of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, and local municipal police agencies, bad and sensational outcomes are avoided.

Hiring the right staff, a mix of para professionals and peer staff that understand mental situations is paramount.
911 staff are being trained to distinguish between police involvement, or directing calls for mental health evaluation.
Did the man have a gun as he professed early on? What weapons did he actually have. A few large knives were thrown out a window during the wind down.

A Saturday’s situation in Macedon, Jim Haitz was contacted by police at home and he responded in person, supplying ‘intel’ on the barricaded man and adding to the direct line communications. Productive negotiations with the man ended the standoff. He came out, was handcuffed and taken to Strong Memorial Hospital by ambulance for a myriad of possible solutions, including self inflicted injuries.

“It was a perfect outcome,” proclaimed Haitz. “Police were calm and there was no panic,” he added.

Other municipalities across the nation are, or have instituted similar guidelines for behavioral crisis situations. The Wayne County Police/Mental Health match up was begun with a $4 million dollar grants, along with County participation and some insurance billing when available.

What about the danger of sending mental health officials into a situation that may escalate?

Haitz indicated that is where the connection with police agencies is vital at determining the right agencies and people. He added that in the future, for extra protection, mental health responders may need bullet proof vests for added security.