frontlines

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!  

by Steve Piatt

(Opinion piece published in New York Outdoor News, Vol 15, No 10, May 17, 2019)

A western New York man convicted under the SAFE Act has seen that conviction overturned by the New York State Supreme Court.

The ruling, however, wasn't an indictment of the SAFE Act itself; the court instead ruled that the now former New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had no jurisdiction to handle the case.

Benjamin Wassel of Silver Creek (Chautauqua County) had been charged with selling an AR-15, an AR-10, ammunition and magazines shortly after the January 2013 passage of the SAFE Act. In May of 2014 he was convicted in Chautauqua County Court of third-degree criminal possession of a firearm and two counts of third-degree criminal sale of a firearm. He was sentenced to probation and fined $375.

His attorney, James Ostrowski, says the felony charges against Wassell will be wiped off his record. The widely criticized SAFE Act, however, lives on. While the state Supreme Court ruled that the attorney general can prosecute a case "only on request of the head of a department, authority, division or agency of the state." That request was not made, the court ruled.

The same five-judge panel didn't address Ostrowski's contention that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional, among other arguments."In light of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions," the court wrote.

Wassell's sale of the firearms to an undercover officer came just days after the late-night, rapid fire passage of the SAFE Act by the state Legislature. Wassell, a Marine veteran who served twice in Iraq, said he was unaware of the new law.

But the SAFE Act remains intact, and the Wassell ruling serves as more of an individual victory than one that puts a nail in the coffin of the SAFE Act. The ongoing court battles - as well as some long-shot legislative efforts - to overturn or repeal the SAFE Act will undoubtedly continue.

****** As we count down the days to the end of the legislative session in Albany, sportsmen and gun owners are keeping a close eye on several bills that are, at last check, thankfully stalled in committee. Among them are a proposal to end the pheasant rearing program in New York, and another that threatens the popular Scholastic Clay Target League.

Bottom line: we're going to breathe a sigh of relief when this session comes to a close.

Original article shortened for brevity spiatt@outdoornews.com 

by Steve Piatt

(Opinion piece published in New York Outdoor News, Vol 15, No. 09, May 3, 2019)

The invitation came via email, and I immediately chuckled.

Then I got angry.

It was an invitation to attend the New York Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Annual Sportsman Legislator Breakfast in Albany.

On May 1.

The lawmakers apparently are unaware that May 1 is the opening day of the state's spring gobbler season, and generally regarded as a big deal for many sportsmen, including myself.

And these are the folks who are supposedly in our corner - as the invitation stated, a bipartisan "group of state legislators united to protect and advance our time-honored sporting traditions in the Empire State."

They've been around now for 15 years, so let's look at their track record of "advancing" hunting and fishing in New York state.

Sure, it was a major victory a few years back when the state lowered its minimum hunting age for big game with a firearm from 16 to 14. Let's keep in mind, however, that this improved regulation remains the most restrictive in the country.

Crossbows are now allowed during a portion of the regular archery season, but lawmakers have been unable to "advance" legislation that would expand it into the entire archery season, notably for seniors and physically challenged hunters.

Environmental conservation officers and forest rangers are generally regarded as operating short staffed. The state's fish hatchery system - which has, in fact, seen millions of dollars funneled into much-needed upgrades - needs further work, especially at the Salmon River hatchery, where water problems persist.

Do we really need to mention the SAFE Act and other gun restrictions passed by the Legislature this year? Or the proposal to shutter the state's last remaining pheasant rearing facility?

Thanks, for the breakfast invitation, folks. But wouldn't it be more productive to invite some of your downstate, Democratic colleagues and educate them as to the importance of hunting and fishing New York, our traditions, and the economic impact our sports provide?

That's what the breakfast agenda is offering: an opportunity to outline the positive impacts hunting and fishing provide in New York state and "the role our sporting traditions play in providing critical conservation dollars" through the American system of conservation funding for the DEC.

I already know that, and I don't need to drive to Albany on the opening day of the spring gobbler season to hear state lawmakers outline all that and use those time-worn phrases like "I pledge to you" and "working together" and "our great pastimes."

Thanks, but instead I'll "advance" hunting in New York state by taking afield a youngster or newbie hunter who may not otherwise have a pathway to the sport. They may even harvest their first-ever gobbler.

If they do, we'll go to the local diner for breakfast.

spiatt@outdoornews.com

Tom Reynolds S.C.O.P.E. Treasurer

I recently saw some interesting information about ancient Rome and politicians that offered “free stuff” and where the giveaways eventually ended up.

In 136 BC, Tiberius Gracchus redistributed land to the landless (Income redistribution and social justice Roman style). He limited the amount of land one could own to 310 acres. (Government deciding someone is too wealthy). He was killed by political enemies.

In 123 BC, Tiberius’ brother Gaius tried implementing his brother’s plans and found that many of those given free land couldn’t actually farm! (Imagine that!) To correct a government program that did not work, the government instituted another program of subsidized grain for all. (A bit like subsidizing college loans and then proposing to forgive the loan because people took out too much!) Gaius was also killed by political enemies.

In 100 BC, the grain program was expanded in exchange for votes. (Gasp! Buying votes. It’s a good thing that could never happen in the U.S.A.!)

In 62 BC, Lucius Catiline, promised his “Clean Slates” program which would eliminate all debt and let people start over again. (The Roman version of Bernie Sanders.) He was also charged, but not convicted, of adultery with a Vestal Virgin. (Who does that remind me of… hmmm?) When he lost an election, he tried to seize power and was killed.

In 59 BC, Publius Clodius Pulcher granted free grain to all free citizens and - who could have guessed - the mobs of unemployed in Rome grew larger and larger. (Who could have foreseen that some people would rather get “free stuff” than work.) Publius was also tried on charges of incest – but the fix was in for acquittal. Publius Clodius was killed by his political enemies.

(Tiberius, Gaius, Lucius and Publius could definitely have used laws against sword ownership! Could their last thoughts have been wishing they had licensed swords and put limits on a sword’s length -capacity?)

Julius Caesar, passed his own land redistribution law, which helped get him elected to a succession of offices as well as to his dictatorship. He was assassinated in 44 BC. (Like today’s London Mayor, Caesar needed laws against knife ownership!)

Because Rome didn’t have laws prohibiting swords, demagogues could be stopped. (Not so good for demagogues, of course.)

Our Founding Fathers were well acquainted with history, especially Roman history, which is why they created the 2nd Amendment for protection against government tyranny. (Deer hunting was okay with the Founding Fathers, too.)

The Roman far-left created a dependency class in Rome that could be manipulated for political purposes. It started with promises of “free stuff” and it ended in death and tyranny. Is it possible that today’s far left sees some parallel between the killing of Roman demagogues and wanting limits on magazine capacity?