frontlines

Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore

Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.

In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”

Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.

2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted

Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.

3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims

Notwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”

In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

4. Texas’s Standing to Sue

Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.

5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

6. Texas Brings the Quotes

The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

13WHAM,  Albany, N.Y. – The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is responding to comments made by Gov. Andrew Cuomo regarding enforcement of COVID-19 safety regulations.

During a news conference Monday, the governor announced several new yellow and orange zone designations, some in upstate and western New York.

When asked about local police agencies enforcing safety guidelines for private gatherings, and those which say they will not be actively doing so, Cuomo alleged they were acting in a politically-motivated manner and failing to follow through with their duties.

“You have sheriffs upstate who have said ‘I’m not going to enforce the law’. How a law enforcement officer says ‘I choose not to enforce that law’, I believe that law enforcement officer violates his or her constitutional duty," said Cuomo. "I don’t consider them a law enforcement officer, because you don’t have the right to pick laws that you think that you’ll enforce, and you don’t enforce laws that you don’t agree with. That’s not a law enforcement officer; that’s a dictator.”

In a statement Monday, the Sheriffs’ Association pushed back against the governor’s comments. It says agencies have responded to thousands of complaints since the onset of the pandemic, and it believes the best approach is to educate the public about health mandates and encourage that they be followed.

It argues that the governor’s instructions can’t be practically enforced and that he should be encouraging citizens to voluntarily follow health officials’ guidance.

“We do not know if the governor’s limit on home gatherings to ten individuals is the right number or not,” the organization’s statement read. “That is a decision for science, not us, to make. We do know, however, that the governor has attempted to foist upon local law enforcement an impossible task. How are officers to know, without violating citizens’ right to privacy and other Constitutional rights, how many people are in the home? How are they to determine if the family gathering is to be deemed “essential” or “nonessential”? If twelve people normally reside in the home, are the officers to order two of them to move out? If eleven individuals are found to be present in the home, who is to be charged with violating the order, all eleven or just the last guest to arrive? Or is it only the homeowner who is in violation? Are officers really supposed to arrest guests who don’t stay six feet apart or who fail to have on their face masks during dinner? All of those are serious questions which make it impossible for law enforcement to know how to legally enforce the governor’s order. They are questions that could have been addressed if we had a functioning State Legislature, creating clear and enforceable laws after input from those who would be impacted by them. Instead we are faced with an unenforceable dictate issued without any consultation with law enforcement or the public as to enforceability.”

The Sheriff’s Association urges citizens to follow health officials’ guidance and limit potential exposure to the virus as much as possible.

“We in law enforcement do not have the resources nor the legal authority to force you to do these things,” the association said. “It is a matter of individual responsibility and we are confident that you will all voluntarily rise to the occasion.”

13WHAM has reached out to the governor’s office for comment.

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship. Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that the executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. Wednesday’s orders by a closely divided Supreme Court, which had turned down two similar requests over the summer by churches in California and Nevada, represented a clear rightward shift on the court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups and blocked the attendance limits. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, issued the executive order at the center of both disputes in October. As part of the state’s effort to combat COVID-19, the executive order and an initiative that it implements identify clusters of COVID-19 cases and then take action to prevent the virus from spreading. An area immediately around a cluster is known as a “red” zone, where attendance at worship services is limited to 10 people. The area around a “red” zone is known as an “orange” zone; attendance at worship services there is limited to 25 people. “Yellow” zones surround “orange” zones; attendance there is limited to 50% of the building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese went to the Supreme Court on Nov. 12, asking the justices to block the attendance limits after the lower courts declined to do so. It told the Supreme Court that as a practical matter, the order “effectively bars in-person worship at affected churches – a ‘devastating’ and ‘spiritually harmful’ burden on the Catholic community.”

The synagogues followed on Nov. 16. They stressed that although they have complied with previous COVID-19 rules, the restrictions imposed by Cuomo’s order preclude them from conducting services for all of their congregants, and they argued that Cuomo’s order targeted Orthodox Jewish communities because other Orthodox Jews had not complied with the rules.

Cuomo pushed back last week, responding that the restrictions on attendance no longer apply to the churches and synagogues, which are in areas that are now designated as yellow zones. But in any event, Cuomo told the justices, the order isn’t focused on gatherings because they are religious, but because of the possibility that they could be “superspreader” events. If anything, Cuomo added, the order treats religious gatherings more favorably than secular events – such as plays and concerts – that involve similar risks.

In an unsigned opinion in the Catholic diocese case that also applies to the synagogues’ case, the five-member majority blocked the state from enforcing the attendance limits while the challengers continue to litigate the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits. The court explained that Cuomo’s order does not appear to be neutral, but instead “single[s] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” For example, although a synagogue or a church in a red zone is limited to 10 people at a service, there are no limits on how many people a nearby “essential” business – which can include acupuncture or a camp ground – can admit.

Because the Cuomo order is not neutral, the court continued, it is subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny. It fails that test, the court concluded, because the order is too broad. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. And if the restrictions are enforced, the court added, they will result in permanent harm to people who cannot attend and for whom a livestream of services is not an adequate substitute.

The court’s opinion in the two cases was released a few minutes before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving.

Gorsuch filed a short, separate opinion in which he emphasized that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

Kavanaugh filed his own opinion, stressing that Wednesday’s ruling from the court is only a temporary one until the 2nd Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the dispute next month, can act on the case, followed – if necessary – by a decision on the merits by the justices.

Kavanaugh also pushed back on a point at the heart of a dissenting opinion filed by Roberts, who acknowledged that the restrictions in these cases “may well” violate the free exercise clause but maintained that the court did not need to decide that “serious and difficult question” now because the attendance limits no longer apply to the challengers. Kavanaugh countered that there is “no good reason” not to act now. If the houses of worship challenging the restrictions do not return to red or orange zones, he observed, then the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.” But if they do end up back in red or orange zones, the rulings will ensure that they are not subject to unconstitutional treatment.

Breyer filed his own dissenting opinion, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined. They agreed with Roberts that there is no need for the court to act now. But in any event, Breyer added, because of what we know about how the virus is transmitted, particularly when it comes to the increased risk of transmission at indoor activities at which people are in close contact with one another for extended periods of time, the question whether the attendance limits violate the Constitution is “far from clear.”

Sotomayor also filed a separate dissenting opinion, which Kagan joined. In her view, the challengers’ cases were “easier” than last summer’s challenges by churches in California and Nevada to shut-down orders and attendance limits because Cuomo’s order treats houses of worship more favorably than comparable secular gatherings. In a pointed rebuttal to Gorsuch’s opinion, Sotomayor agreed that states “may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles,” she stressed, “are not at stake today.”

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner--  by Dave Urbanski

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner. But he pries away weapon, fires, and hits both suspects — killing one of them.  The other suspect was taken to jail after being released from the hospital.

Two men entered a home in Elk City, Oklahoma, sometime before 6 a.m. Saturday and went into a bedroom when one of the men pulled out a gun, pointed it at the homeowner's face, and demanded money, according to a document police provided to TheBlaze.

What happened next?

The homeowner told police he was afraid he would be killed, so he grabbed the handgun and pointed it away from his face. A struggle for the gun ensued, after which the homeowner told police the two men pinned him on the bed, the document states.

The homeowner told police that after he gained control of the gun, he fired it several times until the man who pointed it at him fell to the floor. The document also states that, according to the homeowner, the other man who was with the gun-wielding assailant ran out of the house.

That man — Isaiah Johnson, 25 — was shot in the chest during the struggle, the document from police states.

But he had quite a story for cops at the hospital later, telling them he heard shots while walking near the house on the 600 block of North Watkins, realized he was hit, and went to the hospital for treatment, the document states.

Soon, however, Johnson came clean.

Upon further questioning, he confessed that he knew the other suspect — Samuel Castro Jr., 39 — had a handgun before they entered the house and was intending to rob the victim, the document states. Johnson added to police after he heard the gunshots and felt pain in his chest, he fled the home and walked to the hospital. He also said he originally told cops he was hit while walking near the residence so that he might avoid being arrested, the document states.

Johnson was still in jail Tuesday afternoon, police told TheBlaze.

Isaiah JohnsonImage source: Elk City, Oklahoma, Police

Police found Castro's body surrounded by a large pool of blood in the bedroom where the struggle with the homeowner took place, the document says, adding that officers also observed a Walther .380 handgun on a small table in the bedroom.

A medical examiner investigator found several gunshot wounds on Samuel's body, the document adds.

Police on Tuesday would release no other information to TheBlaze.

Quite the wake-up call

Neighbors woke up Saturday to an abnormally large police presence.

"I saw five or six police cars; they had all alleys blocked off," Tristian Wooten told KWTV-DT. "Cones had the area shut off."

"They blocked off all in front of the tennis courts there that are to the south and then all the way at the north end of the block," neighbor Terry Jordan added to KWTV. "So you couldn't even really tell what house everything happened at."

"Something like this happens, it does hit pretty close to home," Wooten added to the station. "It does kind of make you wanna ... step up your guard a little bit more."

Jordan acknowledged to KWTV that "home invasion is kind of a whole different level" and "it's something you think about" since "as a homeowner" you want to keep your family safe.

The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress  by Harold Moskowitz

There is a long standing but growing problem facing our legislative process; self-interest of the legislators.  When the Founders set up a government based upon virtue, it was expected that legislators would represent the interests of the district which elected them.  The assumption was that after one or two terms these representatives would return to private life where they could pursue self-interest.

Today, it would be hard to find virtue in the Washington “Swamp.”  Many in Congress have become “career politicians.”  Personal interests are often represented, not those of the People.  Many legislators - of both political parties - often enter Congress as “middle class” but after decades in office they and close family members often become multi-millionaires.  During their time in office, their allegiance is often to the industries which funded their campaigns or contributed to their personal wealth. Financial connections to foreign-owned corporations also can affect their legislative functioning while in office.  In addition, promises made before an election are often broken after the election.

After attaining retirement, with a large taxpayer funded pension, many become highly paid “lobbyists” representing the interests of the same industries which helped to fund their campaigns.  The problem of allegiance to corporate interests is widespread and needs to be addressed through meaningful reforms.

There needs to be term limits added to the Constitution.  In addition, there needs to be a stronger post-retirement “lobbying” law which would place restrictions on post-retirement “lobbying.”  For instance, the law could prevent “lobbying” for ten years after the retirement date. 

Those who claim that elections already serve the term-limiting function fail to realize the power of “name/face recognition” and, especially, the greater access to campaign funding for incumbents to aid in their reelection.  There is already a two-term limit for Presidents.  Why not for legislators?

Members of Congress will neither propose a term-limiting amendment nor pass one on to the states for ratification.  When a new amendment is needed, the Framers gave us an alternative method for overcoming this type of resistance from Congress.  Article V of the Constitution allows for the states, in lieu of Congress, to propose necessary amendments.

If important reforms are not made in our legislative process to deal with the growing threat of using public office for personal gain, then fewer citizens will think it necessary or worthwhile to be involved in the election process.  Yet, now more than ever, the survival of our constitutional republic requires their involvement and participation.

Long Island, NY —  Three hospitals in Long Island are going to start collecting data on gun ownership from every single patient who comes in the door — regardless of their reason for being there.

[This could be bad news for gun owners in "Red Flag" states, like NY.]

Northwell Health system says they are going to “analyze the risks of gun ownership” by collecting the data in a $1.4 million dollar program they’re calling “We Ask Everyone About Guns.”

Catchy name.

Their public statement on the data collection explains that the hospital system plans to expand the study to all of their hospitals, but are starting with just three.  Additionally, they liken the problem of ‘gun violence’ to a disease — thereby invoking funding for their research. [emphasis added]

The New Hyde Park-based health system said the grant is part of its “We Ask Everyone About Guns” research study, which approaches firearm injury risk similarly to other health risk factors that are part of routine care, like smoking, substance use and motor vehicle accidents.

“Gun violence is a public health issue,” said Michael J. Dowling, the president and chief executive at Northwell Health. “This is the health industry’s responsibility to talk about this and do something about it.”

This isn’t Northwell’s first foray into the gun control debate — or their first attempt to claim that gun violence is a disease.  In 2019, the Hospital system posted the following statements on their blog:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a scientifically inaccurate statement, says Hargarten. Guns do not, in fact, kill people, but the bullets certainly do. “The kinetic energy from the bullet is the ‘agent,’ much like the HIV virus is the agent that causes AIDS,” he explains. “The bullet and the kinetic energy it transmits to the body tears and destroy cells and tissue, damages organs, breaks bones and leads to disability or death.”

The disease model, Hargarten says, is how researchers and public health and medical professionals studied and addressed the staggering numbers of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. “We scientifically investigated crashes and motor vehicle fatalities and learned that attenuating the kinetic energy release reduced injuries and death.” In other words, driving at slower speeds, requiring seatbelts and car seats, adding airbags, even redesigning on-ramps and road curves, contributed to a steep reduction in motor vehicle fatalities since the 1970s. With guns, Hargarten says, maybe interventions can include limiting the rate at which a gun can release bullets. Or limiting how many bullets it can release—aka restricting access to automatic weapons, “bump stocks,” and high-capacity magazines.

Back in 2019, the government granted the CDC a $25 million dollar budget to research the ‘gun violence’ epidemic.  We pointed out at that time how ludicrous it is to liken gun violence to a disease.  Bullets aren’t contagious, and there’s no genetic component or nutritional solution! You can’t kill a germ and make it go away.

But here we are, using tax-payer dollars to purchase science that backs up the anti-gun agenda.  This isn’t science.  It’s a politically motivated agenda that’s being advanced by our own tax dollars. [emphasis added]

New York State Has Red Flag Laws

Gun owners will remember that New York has already passed and implemented Red Flag Laws.  That means that if  a gun owner answers the questions their doctor is asking them truthfully –“Yes, I have guns in my home” and then expresses anger at the driver that just hit their car –sending them to the ER in the first place — they could get Red Flagged by their doctor that same day.

If you go to the ER for pneumonia and the doctor finds out you have guns as well as a prescription for an anti-depressant, they can Red Flag you as mentally unstable.  If you are upset about the insane bill that you’ve gotten from the same hospital and call to complain to the billing department…..they’ll see on your chart that you are a gun owner and can have you Red Flagged for being angry on the phone.

The hospital isn’t bothering to look into why the state’s current gun control — which is some of the worst in the country — isn’t stopping violent crime.   No, they’re going to pin this on law abiding gun owners and will manipulate the data to fit their agenda.

This anti-gun agenda is out of control and these Red Flag laws are unconstitutional in the extreme. This is a dangerous combination for gun owners in New York.

S.C.O.P.E.'s Candidates’ Ratings on the 2nd Amendment

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

For the United States Congress from New York State:

District 1       Lee Zeldin

District 3       George Devolder-Santos

District 14     John Cummings

District 18     Chele Farley

District 19     Kyle Van De Water

District 20     Liz Joy

District 21     Elise Stefanik

District 22     Claudia Tenney

District 23     Tom Reed    

District 24     John Katko

District 26     Ricky Donovan Sr

District 27     Chris Jacobs            

  Listed below is any New York State Senate candidate that got an A rating from at least one of either SCOPE, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) or NRA-PVF (NRA).    

District 1       Anthony Palumbo              SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 2       Mario Mattera                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 3       Alexis Weik                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 4       Philip Boyle                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 5       Edmund Smythe                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 6       Dennis Dunne                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 7       David Franklin                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 9       Victoria Johnson                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 15     Thomas Sullivan                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 22     Vito Bruno                            SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 23     Justin DeFillippo                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-?

District 24     Andrew Lanza                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 30     Oz Sultan                              SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 37     Liviu Saimovici                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 39     Steve Brescia                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 40     Rob Astorino                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 41     Susan Serino                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 42     Mike Martucci                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 43     Daphne Jordan                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 45     Dan Stec                               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 46     Richard Amedure               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 47     Joseph Grippo                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 48     Patricia Ritchie                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 49     James Tedisco                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 50     Angi Renna                           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 51     Peter Oberacker                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 52     Fred Ashkar                          SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 53     Sam Rogers                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 54     Pamela Helming                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 55     Christopher Missick           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 56     Michael Barry                      SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 57     George Borrello                  SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 58     Thomas O’Mara                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 59     Patrick Gallivan                   SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 60     Joshua Mertzlufft               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 61     Edward Rath                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 62     Rob Ortt                                SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

Click here to download a Pdf copy of this ratings list.

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15 by David Harsanyi, National Review

In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:

Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)

Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”

Contemporary legislators have the hubris to believe that the Founders hadn’t envisioned any kind of technological advances in firearm technology. It’s an argument tantamount to claiming that free-speech protections are not operable because James Madison couldn’t foresee the incredible speed with which information can be disseminated on the Internet.

Not only did legislators in the late 18th-century witness the advent and adoption of long-range Pennsylvania rifles — ones that could fire at 300 yards with decent precision rather than 50 yards with none — but they were likely acquainted with the existence of weapons such as air-powered repeating rifles that could fire .46-caliber lead balls about 40 times before losing muzzle velocity. No Founder ever said, “hey maybe we a mistake.” In fact, in the subsequent 150 years — through the rise of the revolver, the repeating rifle, and the gas-powered automatic weapons — no one ever challenged the idea that the Second Amendment protected anything but an individual right. Heller, the decision that so infuriated leftists, simply reaffirmed what had been obvious to everyone since 1789.

The Second Amendment is predicated on the principle that people have the right defend themselves and their liberties. The right to bear arms, in fact, is older than the right to free speech or freedom of religion. The English Bill of Rights, a document cataloging the crimes of James II and codifying the “ancient and indubitable” rights of English citizens in 1689, includes the right “arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Well, for Protestants. By 1765, William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system, wrote that “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Not one Founder mentioned anything about “hunting” or “skeet shooting” during the debates over the drafting of the Constitution.

The founding generation believed that firearms should be used to guarantee the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution — whether they were in the government or not. Thankfully, there is no need of insurrection now. But the presence of armed citizenry is always a good bulwark against tyranny. Just in case.

And a musket simply won’t do.

Friday, October 9th. is the deadline!

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections. The last day to register to vote in the upcoming General Election is October 9, 2020.

Online

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections.

Updated information could include providing your County or City Board of Elections with your new name, new address, or changing a party enrollment. We forward completed applications to the appropriate County or City Board of Elections for approval and processing. Learn more about Electronic Voter Registration.

To register you will need

• your New York State DMV issued driver license, permit or Non-Driver ID
  • it must be your most recently issued document - you will need the ID Number and document number (See Sample Documents)
• the ZIP Code currently on record with the DMV 
• the last 4 digits of your Social Security Number (SSN)

Register to vote or update your voter registration information

If you are having trouble registering online

Make sure you enter

• your document number correctly - it's easy to mix characters, like the number '1' for the letter 'I'
• the ZIP Code we currently have on record (we might not be aware of a recent move)

If you created MyDMV account before, you can log into that to access the voter registration application. 

If you do not have your most recent New York State DMV issued identification (license, permit or non-driver ID) or were never issued a New York State DMV identification document, you cannot register online through DMV.  You will need to register by mail or in person. 

By mail

To register by mail, visit the New York State Board of Elections website to download a Voter Registration Form. The form provides the mailing address for your local Board of Elections. 

In person

You can register to vote at your county board of elections, or at a New York State Agency - Based registration center.  The New York State Board of Elections website has. Visit the Voter Registration webpage at the New York State Board of Elections for more information.

What happens to my voter registration application?

The electronic voter registration application is transferred from DMV to your County or City Board of Elections for review. Once processed, your County or City will notify you either that you are registered to vote or additional information is needed to complete your application. (Please allow up to six weeks to hear from the Board of Elections in your County or City. If after 6 weeks you have not heard from them, contact them at the phone number or address provided on the New York State Board of Elections website.)

The DMV does not approve or deny voter registration applications. We only send the application to the County or City Board of Elections for their review.