frontlines

By Bill Fox Chairman Genesee County SCOPE Chapter

It’s important to understand the mentality of those on the left who oppose the 2nd Amendment. Toward that end, on July 29th, Genesee County SCOPE members attended a town meeting sponsored by Congressman Joe Morelle, in Irondequoit. Two members were able to get inside while two more remained outside and were seen on TV. The crowd was heavily anti-2nd Amendment.

Joe Morelle is an anti-2nd Amendment Congressman who claims to have never shot a firearm, (which, of course, makes him an “expert” on the subject). He supports background checks, banning assault weapons, and red flag laws and is against concealed carry laws. It should be noted that there were seven police officers there; all armed. But, the hypocrisy of that was unmentioned by the congressman.

Morelle was asked if he knew what the 2nd amendment was about and he responded that the militia were from the 1700’s and currently not used. Obviously, he is not familiar with SCOTUS’ Heller and McDonald decisions.

Amazingly, he wants to bring back the expired assault weapons ban which was not renewed since it was shown to be ineffective. But hey, nothing like passing an ineffective law to get your anti-2A credentials punched.

Morelle wants to “Harden” gun shops with more inspections and hire more ATF agents. Presumably, he does not want any of the new hires going anywhere near our southern border with Mexico. Probably a good thing since there may be left over “Fast and Furious” guns from the Obama administration still around to be used against ATF agents.

Morelle said, “Even if you support the 2nd amendment, children should not be killed”; obviously looking for sympathy votes. Genesee County SCOPE chair Bill Fox responded, “Why are you murdering babies then?”.

A few of the pro 2A people shouted that the SAFE Act has made criminal felons of us.

It’s interesting that the forum was held in Irondequoit, rather than the city of Rochester, which is in Morelle’s district, and where the majority of the crime occurs. The new City of Rochester Police Chief was present, but questions were blocked regarding crime issues. There was an attempt to discuss the causes and effects of black crime but that was branded as “racist”; the usual way Democrats avoid discussing unpleasant (to them) issues.

A Monroe County SCOPE member offered to bring Morelle to a firing range to learn how to use a gun and shoot. No one is holding their breath until that occurs. The congressman would not want to become familiar with things about which he is legislating.

One woman commented that the common denominator is that the gun is the last one to ask questions. (Whatever that means?) She feels that all guns should be banned and none should be possessed. (That ol’ Constitution is such a hindrance to deep thinkers, like her, on the left.)

Joe feels that universal background checks will fix all the gun violence. Does he also believe that if he leaves a tooth under his pillow the Tooth Fairy will leave a dollar?

Monroe County chapter will continue to publicize Morelle’s (mis)understanding of gun laws.

It’s frightening to observe, first hand, the total lack of understanding about the 2nd Amendment and the hypocrisy of the left. 

By Harold Moskowitz

In the thirteen colonies, as in England, all free men were entitled to keep arms. All able-bodied men in the colonies were expected to use those arms as members of the local militia when mustered in defense of the community. Without that tradition of personal firearm ownership, the successful revolt for independence from Great Britain could not have been possible. It is true that much aid was supplied by France, Spain, and Holland. However, those nations resisted getting involved until colonial military success could be demonstrated on the battlefield. At the onset, colonial farmers may have lacked the skills of military drill but knew how to accurately fire their muskets, fowling pieces, and hunting “long rifles” against British regulars and hired Hessian mercenaries.

Having succeeded in winning independence from the British Empire, the leaders of the new nation wrote the Articles of Confederation as their constitution. Under it, during the “Critical Period” (1781-1789), the former colonies became sovereign states loosely cooperating in a confederation. The central government was given almost no power. In particular, it had neither the power to tax nor the power to raise an armed force to maintain “domestic tranquility.”

The states held government powers which in our present Constitution are delegated to the national government. Under the Articles of Confederation, only states taxed their people and could muster a state militia to put down threats to life, property, or the civil society.

Considering that British tax policies were a major cause of the Revolution, it is perhaps ironic that the first armed citizen revolt was triggered by taxes. Massachusetts farmers such as Daniel Shays were subsistence farmers growing basically just enough to provide enough annual family food with a little extra for use as payment for goods and services in a barter system.

Credit payments and state real estate taxes could only be paid with gold or silver coins. Shays and his neighbors were saddled with bank loans. In addition, Massachusetts took land taxes equaling about one-third of their total yearly income. State courts foreclosed on the farmers leaving many homeless and without any means of support. Many were still waiting for promised payment for their military service during the Revolution. Since they were now debtors for non-payment of bank loans or state taxes, they faced being sentenced to spend years in the hellish conditions of debtors’ prison.

In 1786, Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Revolutionary War, became a major leader in an armed revolt triggered by Massachusetts tax policies. Western Massachusetts farmers demanded tax policy reforms. After years of poor harvests and low crop prices, they wanted lower taxes and the printing of more state-issued paper currency. The state legislature had suspended tax collections for the previous year but now required immediate full payment of all owed taxes. Shays and his followers protested at state courthouses. Their actions prevented the collection of taxes.

News of the tax protests spread to other states. George Washington was disturbed by them and wrote to a friend that: “commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them.” Under the Articles of Confederation the national government had no power to act.

In December, 1786, Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin mobilized a 1,200-man militia paid for by private merchants to stop the tax revolt. In January, 1787, Shays’ band of farmers attacked the federal armory at Springfield. The attack on the armory failed due to the state militia’s use of artillery against the attackers. Four of the rebels were killed and twenty of them were injured.

Many of the rebelling farmers scattered into the countryside ending the tax rebellion. Four thousand men signed confessions stating their participation. They were given amnesty. Several hundred were indicted at a later date on charges related to the revolt. Most of those indicted were pardoned but eighteen, including Shays, were sentenced to death for treason. Two of them were hanged for thievery. The rest were pardoned, had their convictions overturned on appeal, or had their sentences commuted. Daniel Shays had fled to Vermont where he lived the life of a fugitive in a forest. He was pardoned in 1788, and moved to Conesus, New York, where he lived in poverty until his death in 1825.

The “threat” posed by Shays’ Rebellion convinced George Washington to leave retirement to get back into public service. According to Robert Longly of “Thought Co” which is part of the Dotdash publishing family, Thomas Jefferson was not frightened by the armed uprising. His belief was that it was important for liberty that there be a rebellion from time to time. Longly states that in a letter from Jefferson to U.S. Representative William Stephens Smith dated Nov.13, 1787, Jefferson wrote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Although Shays’ Rebellion was easily ended, it was a catalyst which prompted men of wealth and property to push for a constitutional convention. Their goal was to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. They feared that asmaller state than Massachusetts might not have been able to stop such a revolt before it was able to spread to other states. From their perspective, the national government needed to be strong enough to protect order and stability for commerce as well as for protection of life and property.

Despite the fears raised by this grassroots rebellion against unfair court practices and high taxes (four times higher than New Hampshire), the Founders still believed that the right of free men to keep and bear arms was essential for the constitutional republic which they had created only months after the rebellion was quashed. Four years after this revolt by angry and scared farmers, the Second Amendment was enshrined in our Bill of Rights for the prevention of oppressive government and tyranny, as well as for personal defense. Today, an armed populace still has a better chance of remaining a free populace.

By William R Fox Sr, Chairman SCOPE Genesee County

Genesee County S.C.O.P.E. has worked on Second Amendment issues with our county sheriff and our county legislators since the end of 2018. As Chairman, I reached out to our county sheriff in December of 2018; we had heard what was coming out of Albany with the Red Flag Law, the so-called safe storage law, and the many other laws that were eventually voted through both houses without much significant opposition.

We decided that we wanted to start playing offense, for once, instead of constantly playing defense.

After much discussion, we finally got a meeting with the sheriff as well as others in his office and showed him all the bills that, at that time, were on the docket to be voted on. He said that he didn’t agree with most of them. What we really wanted was for him to say that he didn’t and wouldn’t agree with the Red Flag law.

While I was trying to set up the sheriff’s attendance at our May meeting, the Red Flag Law passed, along with others. The sheriff told me that he was still Second Amendment friendly, but he felt that the Red Flag Law would be a good thing; it would help them arrest people that needed to be arrested and to get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. I can’t tell you how disappointed I was - as was the rest of our chapter - and I let him know that.

The sheriff did come to our May meeting where he tried to explain his point of view and then we, in turn, gave him ours. He basically said that he will still pursue getting guns out of the hands of people when the judge decides there is a good reason that they should not have them. He told us that the sheriff’s department has had good luck, in the past, going to the house and talking to people; giving them the option to give their guns to a family member or to just give them to the sheriff until they can decide whether this person should or should not have them.

Again, we tried to explain to him that No Due Process is the whole problem with this law. He said that it really isn’t any different than getting a court order from the judge and, again, I told him that we do not need another law if we already have one.

The chapter brought a lot of points against his decision to be on board with this law.

Accompanying this article, you will see two letters: one that we wrote to the sheriff highlighting our meeting with him; and a second letter to our county legislators, state officials and our county clerk. We have put them on notice that we will be watching to see where this goes.

f you haven’t already had a discussion with your county sheriff, I suggest that you do so because we are running out of options to defeat these unconstitutional laws.  

To all Genesee County Legislators, Genesee County Clerk and State officials:  

S.C.O.P.E. Genesee County invited County Sheriff William Sheron to our meeting in May, and as you can see by our enclosed letter, we have some serious concerns. We brought them forward to the Sheriff, and his responses are included in the said letter.

We need to be vigilant in protecting the sovereignty that our forefathers have given us and so greatly sacrificed for. It is not the government’s job to be regulating“the right to bear arms”, as protected, not granted, by the 2nd Amendment.

The Red Flag Law, aka “extreme risk protection order law” is an extremely slippery slope for our country to be headed down. We do have a problem in society, for sure, but it is a moral and ethical problem that can and should be prevented and addressed from within one’s family circle with attentiveness and discipline.

Our organization has been working very hard to try and educate both lawmakers and citizens about these unconstitutional laws coming out of the NY City controlled Albany.

We have a real problem with the Sheriff’s stance on these issues, as he feels that there is enough “due process” built into the system to protect ones rights. His process for gun confiscation isn’t any different than what we had before, and he has that oversight, but our real issue is that if due process was really contained within these older laws, why do we need another law?

This law (ERPO) also allows for a family member, neighbor, teacher, misinformed or vengeful person to anonymously report, without due cause, and request the confiscation of one’s firearms prior to an official arrest or hearing before a judge in a timely manner.

The bottom line is that our constitution is being abandoned as officials see fit. When is it going to be enough that we put a stop to law abiding citizens having their rights taken away in the name of safety and security, when criminals don’t obey these laws anyway? As we brought to the Sheriff’s attention, he knows well that there have been criminals since the beginning of time, and there will be well after we have all left this life.

We have sent you this letter to make you aware that the people for whom you work will be watching to see that people’s rights are protected, not violated, because of what someone may erroneously may say or do.

We ask you, our elected officials, to be the men and women who will valiantly stand in the gap and protect the Constitution as well as the God given rights of your constituents.

Sincerely,

William Fox, Chapter Chair SCOPE Genesee County

To Sheriff William Sheron:

Thank you being our guest speaker at the Genesee County chapter of SCOPE on May 15th. We appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to address the concerns of our members and affiliated associations regarding the numerous pending and enacted new gun laws in New York State. Listed below is a summary of our concerns that were discussed:

• It’s not just a 2nd amendment infringement, but also now the 1 st, 3rd, 4th and 5th. We look to you as being responsible for protecting our constitutional rights as the highest ranking law enforcement official in our county, state and country.

• Due process should be enacted within a reasonable amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, prior to confiscation of a citizen’s guns, a fundamental constitutional right.

• Taking the firearms from a “threatening person” then leaving that person in the home or neighborhood without immediately addressing the situation with a judge may leave them even more agitated and aggravated; hence, creating a bigger threat.

• Care should be taken in the handling of the guns if taken by authorities, noting that they are personal and expensive property.

• Safe return of the confiscated firearms to the original owner(s) within a reasonable period of time, i.e. 24 hours, not 3 months.

• Family members, i.e. husbands and wives, who own their own individual guns and having both parties’ guns taken, even if only one member is formally arrested; co-ownership issues.

• The SAFE Act restricts the transfer of firearms to other people without going through licensed dealers, except for transfers to spouses or children.

• The word "transfer" in the SAFE Act applies only to a change of ownership of the weapon and not giving it to somebody to hold for a period of time, i.e. family member, while the original owner retains “ownership”.

• Guarantee that there will be no violation of our search and seizure rights by the authorities, State Troopers, Sheriffs or police, by going door to door to confiscate their personal property, i.e. firearms.

• “Mandatory reporting” in effect for teachers and administrators; handled internally and reports not forwarded to the outside law enforcement due to the “black eye” effect.

• Ammo purchases under the new safe storage act are now in violation. • Youth trap leagues are in jeopardy.

• Gun raffles will not be allowed for First Responders, Firemen, to raise funds to purchase necessary medical equipment, trucks, training; increased tax burden to citizens.

• What will happen if we get an anti-gun or unsupportive sheriff or judge in the position? This process has been started by the current officials, and there won’t be any turning back.

• Aren't there enough laws on the books already? When will enough be enough of infringing on the law abiding citizen's rights?

• When will you take a stand against these unconstitutional laws?

The following is a summary of what we understand to be your interpretation and understanding of the SAFE Act, Red Flag Law and other NYS laws that have come into effect. We also interpret this as how you plan to move forward with these laws.

• There is ample due-process protections built into the current law, and it isn't any different than police obtaining a warrant to search or seize property.

• The person who must give up their guns is entitled to a hearing within three to six days (incorrect --10 days) and can appeal any subsequent ruling to a higher court.

• It is a useful tool for local law enforcement to help ensure that people who are a threat don't have easy access to firearms.

• When police are dealing with a person who may be a threat to himself or others, it is best for a friend or family member to take possession of their firearms for safekeeping until things cool down, or when the person is under less stress… still the default option for deputies. Sheriffs’ practice of letting a friend or family member take temporary possession of firearms violates the SAFE Act.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." ". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights." ... For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.  Mar 27, 2009.

Sincerely,

William R Fox Sr, Chairman SCOPE Genesee County  

By Tom Reynolds, Treasurer

Last Spring, I walked through a Civil War cemetery and was struck by the number of graves labeled “Unknown”. Over 150 years ago, those men fought and were amongst the 600,000 that died in that war. Presumably, most of them were young and had not begun to enjoy the many blessings of the life that stretched out in front of them. Now, their dreams, hopes and ambitions are known only to God. But those dreams were real to them and they were willing to forfeit those dreams and give up their lives for their country. They never new what the America they were fighting for would become and its irreplaceable contribution to the betterment of the world. They only knew what it was and that it was worth fighting for.

Why are people willing to fight and die for their country? One reason is because we are the product of the stories and history of the Americans that preceded us. Those stories and that history give us reasons to stand up and fight for our country.

Those that died in the Civil War would have grown up on tales of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Andrew Jackson and the heroes of the Alamo. They were taught to respect and to emulate heroic actions and they believed in the promise of America. My parents’ generation fought World War II, where 400,000 Americans died. I grew up in a culture that promoted love and devotion for America while hearing veterans speak of their experiences and sacrifices.

Without an historical foundation, which teaches love of country as well as the blessings of being an American, it becomes easy to reject American values and uniqueness. That’s why the current fad of destroying our historical figures is so dangerous. Without their examples to guide us, it’s easy to be self-centered and provides a ready excuse for tearing down the very essence of America; our traditions, heritage and Constitution.

Some try to use slavery to de -legitimatize everything that happened during the first “four score and seven years” of America. Slavery was indeed a blight on our heritage, but it was also bitterly opposed by many Americans during those years and, eventually, hundreds of thousands gave up their lives to end it. My point being, there is more to those stories that attempt to delegitimize America than just the headline.

For example, the anti-Americans would paint George Washington solely as a slave owner. He was. And if you have read about his life, you know that as a young man he was extremely ambitious and not always in good ways. But he was also so much, much more.

Forget his time as the commanding general of the continental army and his time as president, where his judgment and leadership made him one of the icons of history. Forget his willing to sacrifice; had he lost the war, he would have lost everything (think Mount Vernon where he was one of the richest men in America). Forget that he had the courage to risk execution as a traitor to England – he was that– if he had lost the Revolutionary War. (Remember the execution scene at the end of “Braveheart” - that’s what England did to traitors.) There were two events in his life that should inspire Americans as to what’s best in us and provide powerful reminders of what our history really is.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, Washington was the most powerful and popular man in America and could easily have been made king; he had the army behind him, something that dictators throughout history have found irresistible. But instead, he resigned his commission, gave up physical control of the military, rejected any formal political position and retired to private life. Later, he gave up a very enjoyable private life when drafted to serve as our first president. After eight years, he gave up what would have been a lifetime position; he turned over the power of the presidency to others.

Washington’s mortal enemy King George III, the man who would have executed Washington as a traitor, said that if Washington gave up control of the army after the Revolutionary War, he would be “…the greatest man in the world”; sounds like he was more than just a slaveholder.

The historical foundation that Washington gave us served as an unofficial guideline for America and must not be forgotten: that all Americans are citizens where some are called to temporary duty in leadership positions and that they will eventually give up those positions; and that even the most irreplaceable amongst us can be replaced. Thanks to Washington’s example, in 230 years the only military coup we had was the Civil War. Thanks to Washington’s example, only two presidents have ever attempted to cross the out-of-bounds that Washington set about a third term. (By-the-way, both were named Roosevelt.)

If Washington is only remembered as a slave holder, the anti-Americans will have succeeded in invalidating his other achievements. On a larger scale, if they can tarnish enough of our history, they can bring down the Constitution and thus bring down America.

Why fight and possibly die for the America they want us to picture? Why obey a Constitution that judges and other government officials are sworn to preserve protect and defend but ignore when it meets their personal political needs? Why submit to the will of the electorate and the guidelines of the Constitution when the bureaucracy can attempt to overthrow the election if a president they don’t like? Why allow free speech, just because it’s constitutional, when the speech is contrary to your beliefs? Why allow people to have guns just because the Constitution says it’s their right? Why believe in the traditional, religious, moral values that have been at the basis of America’s growth if you can convince people that America is a nation of gun-toters, white supremacists, sexists, racists, etc?

We know that America is not what the anti-Americans would have us believe and it is worth preserving, protecting and defending. We cannot sit idly by while our youth and culture are poisoned by Hollywood, the liberal educational system and main stream media.

I was talking with a Baptist Minister about the many ways that the government is pushing religion and traditional religious values out of American lives. We both were unhappy about that direction but I theorized that, perhaps, this is God’s plan to test us; we had become dependent upon the government to push our religious values and this change puts the onus back on our shoulders, where it belongs. We can’t depend on the government to do what we should be doing. We’ll have to step up.

In much the same way, our culture, media and educational system formerly pointed out the many good things about America. They do the opposite now and it’s back on our shoulders to do something to preserve our constitution and values. If we sit idly by while doing nothing and only complaining, we will lose the essence that made America great and the world would have lost its “last best hope”. It’s time to fight back and remind people of what’s good about America. We’re not perfect but we’re a damn sight better than whatever is in second place.  

By Tom Reynolds

New York State’s Attorney General has branded the NRA as a Domestic Terrorist Organization; however, this is just political “sticks and stones” since it has no legal authority. But never to be outdone, San Francisco took it a bit further and passed a resolution declaring the NRA as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”. Since many SCOPE members are also NRA members, this raises some interesting possibilities.

If an NRA member was on an airplane flight that landed in San Francisco, could that person be arrested as a domestic terrorist? After all, members of a Domestic Terrorist Organization are, by definition, themselves terrorists. I doubt this will happen though, because the ensuing lawsuit against San Francisco would be counted in millions of dollars.

If someone had the time and viewed it as a potential investment in winning a multi-million dollar lawsuit - as well as a chance for nationwide celebrity on Fox News -they could fly to San Francisco wearing clothes with the NRA logo displayed prominently – and perhaps wearing a MAGA hat – and carrying your NRA membership card! (But without a weapon.) Then, go to city hall, still wearing your NRA clothes, and demand to speak with the mayor. Or better yet, petition to conduct an NRA rally in San Francisco. Or even better, have a San Francisco resident try to speak to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors during the public comment section before the meeting while wearing the NRA logo. Will it get someone arrested as a Domestic Terrorist? I’ll bet lawyers would be lined up around the block to take your case.

Obviously, I am being sarcastic (in case you didn’t pick up on that) but ask yourself why did San Francisco do something meaningless like this, besides getting their ultra-liberal credentials checked. It’s like many other laws passed at the state and federal level; they know the law won’t work but they can say that they did something.

When Ronald Reagan was president, he was severely criticized by the main stream media for not reaching an arms agreement – any arms agreement – with the Soviet Union during his first term. After all, his predecessor presidents had gone panting after any agreement they could possibly get, even though the agreements were largely without substance. But Reagan was willing to hold out for meaningful agreements that accomplished something. Was Reagan or the main stream media right? Try finding the Soviet Union on a current world map for the answer.

In fairness to San Francisco, they do pass some laws that have had a meaningful result; one can now defecate on San Francisco’s streets without fear of punishment. Reports say that there is a significant amount of human waste now accumulating and - I hope - being collected.

Imagine a place where you can get a ticket for not picking up your dog feces but not your own. (No, officer, that was me not my dog!)

Imagine a place where you can get fast food in a Styrofoam container with a plastic fork and in a plastic bag or on a plastic tray but would get a ticket if you had a plastic straw.

Imagine a place where local authorities would not hand over to federal authorities a murderer / rapist solely because he was in the country illegally.

By the way, no NRA (or SCOPE) member has ever been responsible for a mass shooting. It is factually accurate to point out that gun owners are amongst the most law-abiding American citizens; gun owners have to be certified by the federal government as law abiding citizens in order to buy a gun! You don’t need that certification to get a driver’s license, a high school or college diploma, vote in an election or get welfare. In fact, you can enter the USA illegally and do all of the above in San Francisco. 

- Attilio Contini, Ulster County It has been said, ”The battle ground to save our 2nd Amendment Rights is now in the Courts”. Here in New York State that is an understatement, to say the least. At the time of the passage of the SAFE ACT, we still had some checks and balances, which lasted until election day 2018. No more! With the New York City Democrats getting full and complete control of the State Government all is lost. But we cannot and must not give up. Some people think the Courts may be our savior and last resort. I, for one, have little confidence in the Judicial System protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights. We may get a small bone here and there, but at the end of the day we will find the Courts will let us down for various reasons.  First and foremost;   here in NYS the judicial system at the Appeals level is packed with Cuomo appointed liberal judges. Yes, they took an oath to support and defend our Constitution. So did our elected Assemblymen, Senators, and the Governor. Violating that oath means nothing to them! The crime is that we let them get away with it! Second, we will have to file law suits to bring challenges of unjust laws into court. Who will do that and where will the money come from? This cost will be beyond most people and organizations financial ability. Third and most critical, our Governing process has deteriorated and it has evolved to where the control and power are centralized with bureaucrats in Albany and Washing- ton. Unelected bureaucrats have more control of the governing process than our elected officials. Unfortunately, over the years the courts have a history of favoring big government and catering to the “wisdom” of these bureaucrats. We are losing more than just our gun rights and we had better face up to that reality. It took a lot of courage, determination, and hard fighting for our forefathers to win our freedom. They rallied to the cause and sacrificed life, wealth, and comfort to throw off tyranny and give us the greatest and freest country in the world. They set up a constitution and government that, if practiced properly, would assure our freedom and liberty. Why are we letting it slip away? Because the tyrants have worked long and hard to take that away from us and, make no mistake, they are succeeding. They are using our government to strip us of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Republican form of Government. Watergate is a dirty word for most of us but it was the result of more than just a power-hungry Nixon. His removal from office hurt this Country more than most of us realize. Watergate prompted the creation of the Independent Council which insulated the permanent, unelected insiders from political and executive control.   Today, our judicial system is being used to hound and force our duly elected President, who has done nothing wrong, out of office. Our Governor is using State agencies and eventually the Courts to blackmail the Banking and Insurance industry into doing his dirty work, or else. During the Campaign Trump talked about “Draining the Swamp”. The swamp saw that as a direct threat, so the Democrats initiated the “Collusion Investigation” to keep Trump from being elected. It did not work. They continue trying to remove him from office, even today, which robs us of our constitutional right to elect our political leaders. In all this, Congress has forgotten its ability to properly legislate and seems to have become an investigative arm of a government that is unanswerable to the people. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Trump is trying to replace the top officials in the various agencies with people who would clean up the mess. The insiders shield the Democrats from persecution but go after Trump with a vengeance. Today, here in NYS, the Democrats are going wild in their drive to disarm all law-abiding citizens. Our only recourse seems to be to go to court to preserve our Rights. I am afraid the Cuomo appointed judges will not decide in our favor. We could be a giant but we are, instead, a sleeping giant. Unless we can find a way to wake up, defend our rights, and motivate ourselves and others to action, we will lose all our Constitutional Rights forever!

By Tim Andrews

On September 3, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution, “declaring that the NRA is a domestic terrorist organization.” We’ve heard similar statements from others but what’s significant about this one is that it is coming from a government body. If you are an NRA member who many of us are, you are now labeled as part of a terrorist organization.

Yes, it’s only the San Francisco Board of Supervisors but how far are we from similar action by New York State’s legislature or our governor? Governor Cuomo has already told us we aren’t welcomed in New York. Even on the federal level, of the current slate of Democratic candidates for president how many of them would disagree with the action taken in San Francisco? My guess is not many, if any.

It’s becoming apparent that radical extremism is ruling the day and its foot is in the door of governments across the United States.

It’s not just guns, it’s issues like illegal immigration and infanticide, even killing babies after they’ve survived an abortion. This is just a sample of the extremism that grips our country today. Make no mistake there is a movement and an effective one, to totally change our culture, our traditions and ultimately our constitution. It is not hyperbole to say the Democratic party is quickly becoming a radical extreme left party.

It’s not just guns, many Democrats are now calling for abolishing the electoral college. If they’re successful, our federal government would look more like San Francisco and New York City. The large urban areas of the United States would likely elect future presidents, and middle America would be forgotten. The Second Amendment would eventually disappear, and American’s gun rights would be gone forever.

It wasn’t long ago when gun grabbers would always couch their rhetoric by telling us they weren’t out to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, some would even claim they supported the Second Amendment. Well, no more, the veil is off, countless politicians and gun control groups are now calling for gun bans and confiscations. Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke in a presidential debate flat out told us if he’s elected, he’s coming for your AR-15’s and AK-47’s. With the unSAFE Act and the recent red flag law, we already have confiscation laws in New York State.

New York’s recently enacted red flag law not only attacks Second Amendment rights, but it also undermines due process rights as guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well. Think about it, rights given to ruthless criminals are now being denied to law-abiding American citizens. Furthermore, if you are wrongly accused, your accuser under New York’s law, faces no criminal repercussions. Under New York’s red flag law your firearms can be confiscated even if you haven’t been convicted of a crime or even had your day in court. Your day in court will come only after you’ve had your guns confiscated. Whether or not you ever get your guns back may very well depend on your ability to pay for a defense.

For years we’ve dealt with gun prohibitionists in the media as well as politicians using the smokescreen of public safety to advance their agenda. They’ve used emotion over intellect to convince a naive public that guns are the problem. What’s totally ignored is the breakdown in our education system, mental health, and law enforcement. Just about every mass shooter can be connected to one or more of these failures and the gun grabbers have no interest in addressing any of these bureaucratic failures. It’s fair to ask, why not? What is their end goal? If it was really about safety and protecting lives why aren’t they addressing issues other than guns that clearly play a role in crime and violence? It’s simple, it’s about control, every tyrannical government in history began with gun confiscation. That is why we have a Second Amendment.

If you think that’s not true read the following from Democratic Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968, "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Humphrey was a Democrat who clearly understood the purpose of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment first and foremost is about protecting us from politicians like Beto O’Rourke.

When it comes to the future of our country we live in perilous times. And the sad fact is most gun owners are missing in action (MIA) in the fight for our gun rights. For example, it’s estimated there are well over one hundred million-gun owners in the United States. Of that number, the NRA touts their membership at five million, at best a meager 5% of gun owners. I believe many of those gun owners who are MIA, just don’t recognize the threat. Many are hand gunners, shot gunners or guys with Remington 700 bolt actions who don’t think they’ll ever come for their guns. Well, the game has changed; under red flag laws, all gun owners are in jeopardy of losing their guns. You couldn’t be more wrong if you think politicians like O’Rourke are going to stop with ARs and AKs. If half the gun owners in New York and around the country joined the fight we could win the fight. Politicians like New York’s Senator Kirsten Gillibrand would probably even become pro-gun, again. Excuse my sarcasm but given her record of hypocrisy that’s probably accurate.

The current attacks on our Second Amendment rights are unparalleled in our history. Based on the action taken in San Francisco you, if you’re an NRA member or if you simply support in the Second Amendment, are now considered a terrorist. This is a call to action, in the words of Ben Franklin, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

This is more than a war on our gun rights; it’s a war on America, our culture, and the principles of our country’s founding. I have never seen a time when our rights as citizens have been in more jeopardy.  

By Tim Andrews

There’s no question we all deplore mass shootings, and as much as anyone we would like to prevent these horrendous acts. Regrettably, the misguided solution that gets most of the attention is more gun control impacting law-abiding citizens. What we get is more gun control on top of more gun control, none of which ever impacts demented individuals, preventing them from perpetrating evil.

Gun control does not work, there are literally thousands of gun control laws on the books and it’s clear they don’t work. So, what will work? Of late, some media and law enforcement officials to varying degrees have begun withholding the names of the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes. The reason often given is that the perpetrators are often looking for notoriety and it’s felt withholding their names serves the greater good.

There’s merit to that logic and I would propose taking it a step further. I would propose a law not just withholding the name of the perpetrator, but also banning the media from reporting mass shootings. By withholding names, the media and law enforcement have given, perhaps unintentionally, evidence that they believe reporting on mass shootings does contribute to their frequency.

Withholding names is a start but it’s voluntary and the names to some degree still end up in the media. Even if names are withheld it still does not deprive the shooter of the notoriety of his crime or his manifesto. Notoriety and recognition may very well be the principal reason for mass shootings.

Yes, I know, what about that pesky First Amendment, freedom of the press? Well, we’ve been lectured for years by the media that the Bill of Rights are not absolute, that “reasonable” regulations were not only acceptable but reasonable if they can save lives.

The record is clear that gun regulations will do nothing to prevent mass shootings. It’s time we look for real solutions that make sense. Put yourself in the shoes of a potential mass shooter, would you commit a mass shooting if you knew no one would ever hear about it? What would be the point?

Is this proposal radical perhaps, but think of the lives it could save? If the gun grabbing politicians and their allies in the media are sincere about saving lives, they should embrace this proposal with open arms. I’m guessing this proposal will probably be met with silence. If so, it’s proof that saving lives is secondary to them. They need these mass shootings to help promote their agenda to disarm the American people.

Harsh, maybe, but their refusal to consider some restriction on the First Amendment exposes their hypocrisy.  

Tim Andrews S.C.O.P.E. At-Large Director

The 2018 elections were a disaster for New York gun owners, and the subsequent 2019 legislative session was gun control in overdrive. How can we turn this gun control freight train around? One of the remedies is the courts. Several cases which may bring relief are currently making their way through the judicial process.

In addition to the courts, we also need to grow support and establish greater influence within the political process. The issue is how this could be accomplished. The answer is we need to get involved in the process. How and where we do this is critical, the gun vote was very divided in 2018. There were many gun owners that were mislead into thinking the Libertarian Party and their candidate for governor was a valid alternative. True, the Libertarian Party platform does describe the party as pro-Second Amendment. However, you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where the Libertarian Party has had any success defeating gun control. For any political party or candidate, it’s not good enough just to say they’re pro-gun. Sure, it’s great to hear a candidate stand up and say all the things we want to hear, but if that candidate has no legitimate chance of winning in the end, they can do nothing for you. Despite Libertarian claims their candidate could win, we repeatedly warned voters that the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate for governor would at best get maybe 1.5% of the vote, in the end he got 1.5% of the vote.

Like it or not, the Democrat and Republican parties hold all the power in New York. The Libertarian Party is nowhere near being anything more than a fringe party. Beware, the Libertarian Party is very deceptive in how they present themselves. Their website does state they hold three elected offices in New York State. They have a city council position in Binghamton, where that candidate ran as a Democrat and as a Libertarian, 80% of his votes coming on the Democrat line. The second office is an obscure school board office in New York City where candidates run as non-partisan. The third is a councilor’s office in the town of Cicero. That candidate was never elected as a Libertarian. He was elected as a Republican and later left the GOP and became a Libertarian. He is no longer in elective office. The Libertarian website claim that they hold three elected offices in New York is erroneous and an embellishment, they hold two obscure local political offices in New York and none in Albany. They are light years from having any influence in New York State.

You should also be aware where the Libertarian Party is on other key issues of our day. Taken directly from their platform, section 3.4, they support open borders, section 3.1 they oppose the military draft, section 1.8 states they oppose the death penalty and they support abortion rights. From the New York Libertarian website, they specifically state they support a “Less strict immigration policy” and a “easier pathway to citizenship.” SCOPE has no position on any of these non-Second Amendment related issues, however, most gun rights supporters align themselves with conservative voters and given the Libertarian positions on these issues many conservative voting gun owners could never support a Libertarian candidate.

If we are ever going to win the fight in New York, the pathway to victory is not the Libertarian Party. The pathway to political success is through the parties who hold all the power, the Democrat and Republican parties. I know you’re screaming they’re the ones that created this mess, they’re never going to change it. As the parties stand today that may be true, however, change needs to come from within the parties. We need good people to get involved in the parties at the local level. Doing that is not a difficult thing to do, most parties are begging for volunteers, call your local party tell them you want to serve on your town or county committee. Truly this is where change can begin, if you really want to create change this is what we must do. Investing your time in fringe parties is fools gold and if anything will only help elect more gun grabbers to office.

You have the power to change the direction of New York State, but it is going to take hard work and commitment. Especially with the Republican Party We have a chance to make change but it’s going to take you getting involved. If you’re a Democrat or a Republican get involved in your party and serve on your county and town committee, you will be amazed at the influence you can have. If you’re an independent and not registered to any party, register as a Democrat or a Republican and get involved in that party.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be critical of the two major political parties. However, if we as individuals refuse to get involved, we need to recognize that we are part of the problem.

I know Libertarians will likely be infuriated by this column. But keep in mind who was correct when we spoke about the anticipated results of the 2018 election. 

By Harold Moskowitz

President Obama misused the power of his office to create conditions for justifying increased Second Amendment restrictions. From October 2009-2011, the Phoenix Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) facilitated illegal gun sales to Mexican drug cartels. In fact, the government began instructing gun shop owners to break the law by selling firearms to suspected criminals. Dozens of AK-47 style rifles were bought during each transaction. Agents involved were ordered not to intercept the smugglers before the weapons crossed the border. Some of these weapons were paid for with taxpayer money. After purchase, ATF agents sold the weapons to “straw men” for resale to the smugglers.

The scandal only surfaced because two of the illegally sold rifles had been used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry (Dec., 2010.) Three ATF agents became “whistle blowers” and testified before Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) House Oversight Committee. The agents told of being forced by supervisors to let waves of guns pass to Mexican cartels. As the story threaten to involve key Obama officials such as Attorney General Eric Holder, the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s excuse was that it was all part of an “investigation” into where Mexican drug cartels were active and that agents “lost track of some of the firearms.”

As agent John Dodson told the committee: “I cannot but think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hands of known criminals could possibly advance any legitimate law enforcement interest.” A DOJ Inspector General report indicated that hundreds of the untracked guns were later used in the U.S. and Mexico. Documents were eventually released to both Issa’s committee and Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) Senate Judiciary Committee despite “stonewalling.”

In June, 2012, when El Chapo Guzman was arrested, agents found a Barrett .50 caliber rifle linked to Fast and Furious. A total of 34 Barrett .50’s had been “exported” by the ATF. There was eventual confirmation that the murder of “ICE” agent Jaime Zapata in 2011 was directly linked to ATF gun trafficking. In the U.S., one of the untracked weapons was in the hands of Nadir Soofi. He was one of two Muslim terrorists who tried to shoot up anti-Islamic Jihad activist Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in 2015. In June, 2012, Eric Holder became the first Attorney General to be declared in contempt of Congress. This step was taken after Holder refused for months to turn over subpoenaed documents related to ATF gun trafficking. By the time of Holder’s contempt of Congress vote, at least 300 Mexicans had already been murdered or wounded by Obama’s gun scandal weapons. In addition, agents Terry and Zapata had been murdered in the line of duty with those AD-47 style rifles. The DOJ Inspector General also reported that a total of 2000 semi-automatic weapons had been illegally transferred to criminals.

Massive amounts of evidence indicated that Holder’s “investigation” was actually a criminal operation aimed at blaming the Second Amendment for violence in the U.S. and Mexico. Congressional investigators found the operation was intended to push forward the gun control agenda. The scheme only failed because of three courageous ATF agents with consciences.

In June, 2017, the investigating Congressional committees released an incriminating report regarding the Obama administration’s scandal and its attempted cover up. Obama had tried to claim executive privilege to deny Congress access to related documents even though he denied having been personally involved in the scandal. A federal judge forced the release of more than 20,000 pages of emails and memos previously denied by Obama to Congress.

The documents revealed that top Obama officials deliberately obstructed the Congressional probe into Fast and Furious. Internal documents confirmed ATF agent John Dodson’s Congressional testimony regarding the total lack of attempt to track the firearms after they left the U.S. The real goal was to hopefully create a crisis of gun violence requiring a crackdown on firearms in the U.S.

Operation Fast and Furious has a “political angle.” Emails gotten by C.B.S. News in 2011 showed ATF officials discussing the operation to push through a regulation requiring gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” ATF allowed certain gun shops to make desirable sales to dangerous people to use those sales as justification for new reporting requirements. At the same time, the mass media dutifully carried “news stories” about how loose U.S. gun laws lead to shootings in Mexico. In August, 2011, the Obama administration instituted new reporting requirements for the southern border states.

As Ian Tuttle of the National Review expressed it: Under Operation Fast and Furious, the U.S. government became a de facto illegal arms dealer to Mexican drug cartels and Islamic criminals.” Obama and Holder oversaw this scandal while they lectured to the nation about the need for more gun control. Apparently, for the Progressive Left’s goal of severely weakening, if not outright destroying, the Second Amendment, “the end justifies the means.” That reality should never be lost sight of when voting on any Election Day. We must always look beyond the deliberately moderate/central sounding campaign rhetoric of candidates. This is especially true for candidates claiming to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment before reminding us of the need for some “common sense” gun control measures.

One opinion is that Obama and Holder were both guilty of Congressional oversight obstruction regarding the investigation of Fast and Furious and that both have blood on their hands from their illegal gun trafficking. One fact we can state is that both have walked away from their unconscionable scandal unscathed to this day!