frontlines

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? 

By Don Smith Wayne County Chair

The new California “Instant Background Check” system was part of Proposition 63 passed by voters in 2016. It may set a standard for other states and is actually more restrictive than our unSAFE Act. Gun owners should understand the key points as NY may attempt to adopt similar tactics. Some legislators in NY also want to register our long guns.

The purpose of the CA law was to force ammo buyers to undergo an "instant" background check each time they buy a round, box, flat or any amount of ammo. Two purchases on the same day means two background checks. Recall the unSAFE Act contains a similar provision but has not yet been implemented. However, NY recently announced it was closer to establishing the database required to operate the system. Here's how the California [CA] system works:

CA handgun owners have for many years received a “gun I.D. #” with the purchase of a permitted gun (handgun). Registration of long guns began in 2014 and either type of purchase lists them in the CA "Automatic Firearm System" (AFS). [Note that a convicted felon is automatically disqualified from buying ammo in CA].

If a qualified buyer goes to a dealer for ammo, they are not allowed to handle the ammo prior to a background check and have 3 background check options:

1. “Instant Background Check”- Only for residents listed in the California "Automated Firearm System" (AFS) (meaning they have purchased a firearm from a CA dealer). They pay $1 and can make an ammo purchase if they pass the background check. They must also provide: name, address, telephone #, drivers license #, type of ammo and name of the sales person. This info is maintained by CA. [Some claim it is not a registration of ammo. If not, then why require the ammo to be listed ???]

2. Possibly millions in CA have never purchased a gun but may have one via inheritance etc. Thus, they would not be on the AFS list. They can apply for a “Certificate of Eligibility” (COE) from the Department of Justice (DOJ). It costs about $100 and may take 30 days to have fingerprints checked and complete a background check. If they pass, they are then put into the AFS system and are eligible for an Instant Background Check in the future. Each ammo purchase thereafter costs $1 and also requires all contact info with each purchase.

3. If neither of these two options are available to a resident, then the third option is a direct dealer transaction where they must pay $19 and expect at least a 10-day waiting period for completion of a background check. The DOJ sends them a transaction # so they can track the progress of their background check. If they pass the check then they have 30 days in which to make the ammo purchase. This is a one-time purchase and the process must be repeated for future purchases unless they decide to purchase a gun and become listed in the AFS or apply for a COE. They must also supply the same contact information as in #1 or #2.

I assume the NY system will be linked to our drivers’ licenses like CA. Some say it is now. A NY gun owners I.D. card could also be required.

The CA bill was meant to simply require an instant background check for ammo purchases. However, the CA DOJ has expanded the requirements to include additional fees, waiting periods and transaction (tracking) #s with no legislative authorization. This could occur in NY.

Non-CA residents can no longer purchase ammo in CA unless they apply for a COE.

Residents of CA can no longer purchase ammo out of state directly from a dealer. The out-ofstate dealer is required to deliver it to a CA dealer. The resident obtains the ammo from the CA dealer after passing a background check.

However, a nonresident can legally bring ammo into CA and give it away but cannot sell it. I suspect the ammo black market in CA should do quite well.  

By Tom Reynolds

A popular saying has arisen about the far left’s free giveaways, “Mice don’t understand why the cheese is free until it is too late”.

What does all this free stuff have to do with the Constitution and in particular the Second Amendment? Power and control! Politicians giving away stuff they label as “free” has been a path to obtaining and keeping power even before Franklin Roosevelt made it into a science in the 1930s.

When the government gives away something “free”, it always comes with strings attached. Those strings make the recipients into government puppets and the primary string is forcing the recipient to agree with and support government policies. It is understood that, if the recipient does not go along with the government, the “free stuff” will end.

Put another way, the government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything away.

Politicians love to define the parameters of an issue in limited terms and avoid looking at the bigger picture effects; a view that might reveal problems with their plans. They need the voters to focus narrowly on only what the politicians want the voters to focus. The results of this bigger picture failure are called unintended consequences and these consequences can run far afield of just the “free stuff”. Again, the “free stuff” is only a path to power, it is not the goal of the politician. Once in power, the politician’s goal is to impose their will in other areas, especially the far left and their anti-Second amendment laws.

Imagine if the far left were to seize power in 2020 because they were elected on a “free stuff” platform. Actually, you don’t have to imagine what would happen. Look at New York State as an example of one party using unchecked powers over a broad spectrum of issues. We are in the sixth term for the liberal Cuomo's that sandwich the three terms of RINO Pataki and the disgraced Eliot Spitzer. During these 30-something years, the NY Senate was usually in Republican hands and while they were less than arduous in pursuing conservative and constitutional goals, they did serve to stop most – but not all - of the craziness that was proposed by the NY City liberals. Now, the voters have put the Senate, Assembly and Governorship all in the far left hands, for whatever reason. There is no stopping the craziness: a 2 nd SAFE Act (check); liberalize abortion (check); anti-business laws (check); use government powers against their opponents (check); free stuff for illegal’s (check).

And if New York State isn’t bad enough, California provides another example. Need I go on?

The far left response to “Keep America Great” is “Vote for me and get it free.” As Rush Limbaugh once asked, “How can you vote against Santa Claus?”

Gun owners must educate the public about politicians proposing giveaways and explaining that these are nothing more than a path to power for those that oppose our traditional American values and our 2nd Amendment rights. When debating against the “free stuff” giveaways, it’s not just the cost of these that make them impossible – and the cost really does make them impossible. Voters need to understand the bigger picture; that once the far left are in power, they will do much more than just give away “stuff”. They will impose their deepest, darkest far left desires on the people and one of their most cherished desires is to abolish the 2nd Amendment.  

By Nelson Prince AMAC Magazine

Vol 13 Issue 2

On February 13, 2016, the American people awoke to the unfortunate news that 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away while on a hunting trip in Texas. A stalwart conservative, celebrated for his sharp legal mind and unfailing sense of humor, Justice Scalia left a lasting and indelible mark on the Supreme Court for generations to come. However, as the 2016 Presidential Election entered its final stages, and as the American people prepared to elect a new president, the legacy and future of the Supreme Court became a major focal point of the 2016 election.

Then-candidate Trump, for the first time in US Presidential election history, produced a list of names he would pick from in nominating a replacement to the late, great Antonin Scalia. Concurrently, then-President Barack Obama nominated DC Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Following Judge Garland’s nomination, and the release of President Trump’s list of potential picks to fill the spot on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was on the 2016 Presidential ballot just as much as Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

We all remember President Trump’s historic upset on November 8, 2016. Even more importantly we remember that President Trump kept his promise to nominate and confirm a judge from the list he released during the campaign. Eleven days after his inauguration, President Trump kept his promise and nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Following complete Democratic obstinacy to his nomination, Senate Republicans invoked the ‘Nuclear Option’ to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees, and Justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the High Court by a vote of 54-45.

Just a few months later, Justice Anthony Kennedy shocked the world when he announced that he would retire from the Supreme Court after 30 years of service. President Trump, yet again, delivered on his 2016 campaign promise to nominate a qualified replacement from the aforementioned list. On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Following a tumultuous confirmation process (to put it nicely) Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Court on October 6, 2018 by a vote of 50-48.

While the Supreme Court has occupied the public mind for the last two years of the Trump Presidency, many Americans are unaware of how much President Trump has done to restore the Judicial Branch to its rightful place as a co-equal branch of government. President Trump has nominated and appointed several Constitutionalist judges at every level of the Federal Judiciary, from the High Court, to the circuit courts, to the district courts, to the military courts, to the tax courts. As Washington, DC embroils itself in controversy after controversy, President Trump continues to nominate, and Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) continues to confirm dozens of judges who are committed to the Constitution and rule of law.

At the end of the first two years of the Trump administration, President Trump has nominated, and Leader McConnell has confirmed 92 judges across the federal judiciary, including two Supreme Court Justices, 30 Circuit Court judges, 53 District Court judges, and several other administrative and military judges. In fact, President Trump has far outpaced any of his other predecessors in nominating judges to the federal circuit courts. Think about this, five of the country’s 12 Circuit Courts are now occupied by more than 25-percent of Trump appointed Judges - twenty-five percent.

Most recently, on January 23, 2019, President Trump renominated 51 old judicial nominations from the previous Congress – including two nominations to the notoriously “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court. With Republicans in firm control of the Senate, and with President Trump eyeing the 140+ vacancies still remaining at all levels of the federal judiciary, we can expect both the President and the Senate to continue their tireless work on restoring the Judiciary to its equal, constitutional footing with the other branches of government.

As we head into the 2020 election cycle, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. But, one thing is certain; President Trump will leave a lasting imprint on the Federal Judiciary for generations to come. With strong, dedicated, and Constitutionally-minded judges on every bench in the United States, President Trump will be remembered for his commitment to the Constitution and a return to the rule of law.  

By Tom Reynolds, Treasurer and Past President

We often hear that a coming election is the most important in our lifetime. Like so many phrases, it’s used so much that it loses its impact. But with hindsight, we can see how many of the elections have increased importance because of the results of previous elections. Unfortunately, the good guys didn’t win them all. We did win some at critical points in our history.

Just in our lifetime: what would the United States be like if Jimmy Carter had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1980?; what would this country be like if Newt Gingrich and the “Contract With America” had not taken control of the House of Representatives, stopping Clinton’s leftward tilt? Can you imagine, except in our nightmares, the destruction a ‘President’ Hillary Clinton would have wreaked on America?

Obviously, the above instances were important because we had to stop something dangerous to our national well-being from continuing or happening. That is why I believe the 2020 election will be the most important of our lifetime, supplanting the 2016 election in that position. Something much more dangerous will happen if we lose.

We saw what happened in the USA when Barack Obama came to power in 2008, along with a liberal Congress. We’ve seen this year what happened when the far-left gained complete political power in New York State. We’ve also seen this year the obstructionism and just plain craziness when liberals won the House; the people in power there seem to hate the United States and all it stands for. Worse, they hate our President with a rage that is incredible. In all three instances, traditional constitutional, moral and religious values were trashed as they took what they believed was their opportunity to fundamentally change our nation and our state.

Think what will happen to the 2nd Amendment if any of the far left presidential candidates were to become President. Even if one of them proclaimed their love for the 2nd Amendment during their campaign, once elected, they would be surrounded by people that have made destroying the 2nd Amendment as well as so many other freedoms loved by this country a centerpiece of their political careers.

Need an example of a politician who dramatically changed colors on the 2nd Amendment? Kristen Gillibrand. Oh wait, isn’t she running for President? Or at least she was as I wrote this.

Congressional candidates may make convincing statements about their love for the 2nd amendment – again, while campaigning – but once in office the liberal leadership in the House will quickly cause a change in position.

It is difficult to imagine any of the far-left candidates speaking at the NRA national convention, as President Trump has done. We can’t blame them for that; who wants to be booed?

The difference in values between President Trump and all his potential opponents is absolutely clear. Unfortunately, the difference between many other Republicans and their Democratic opponents is less clear. (The term RINO comes to mind.) This fuzziness makes it more difficult to inspire hesitant potential voters to get out and vote for “The Lesser of Two Evils”. The fuzziness also makes it difficult for those of us who always vote to become more active in politics. (My own Congressman has made a career of being the “Lesser of Two Evils”.)

If we are to save the 2nd Amendment (and probably the Constitution) it will require a multi-year effort. For the next seventeen months, we need to work to regain control of the House and keep control of the Senate and the Presidency at the federal level. Once that is accomplished, we need to organize and ‘primary’ out of office the RINO’s, both federally and in this state.

It’s a big task in front of us that will require toil, time and money. Thankfully, we have the far-left leadership helping us to inspire people to vote against them. It’s not a sin to vote against someone who is out to destroy all our traditions and values.

To quote Winston Churchill, “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.” We must ‘stiffen our upper lips’ and get serious or lose everything.  

By Nick Massal S.C.O.P.E. President

“If we do not hang together, we will most assuredly hang separately!” Sound familiar? Those words were uttered by Ben Franklin almost 250 years ago. What is the significance of those words today?

The NRA is having internal problems with the board and about spending money – where have we seen this before? The NRA is also under attack by the governor of New York and his attorney general. If you did not already know it, Governor Andrew Cuomo hates gun owners! He also hates Christians and conservatives (he said so himself) and declared that they have no place in New York.

So, what do we do about it? Roll over and die? I’m sorry but that’s not the way I roll (pun intended)!

We have a Democratic party that for the most part is turning socialistic and the Republican Party seems to be sitting back, not answering the call and appears to be fragmented (look how many do not support the President). The President is an outsider. He does not “owe” people in politics a lot of favors so he cannot be controlled that way. Despite not being one of the “good old boys” he has more public support than most of them.

Perhaps it’s the news media that is not bringing the whole story of both parties to the light of day so we can all see what is going on – most of us are sick and tired of “their” spin and would like the news straight up. The media is out to sell stories and advertising. That’s how they make their money and stay in business. Both sides of the media put out a headline to catch our attention regardless of what the underlying story is – human nature.

What can we do? We as 2nd Amendment organizations need to support one another as much as possible in any way possible – we are all in this together and we must stick together. Yes, we have differences. We always will, but fundamentally we are all fighting for the same thing: to stop the encroachment on our God-given rights – the “Right to keep and bear arms”. The government did not give these rights to us. We already had them and the 2nd Amendment merely affirms this right and is a restriction on government not to infringe upon them.

Give what you can to the NRA and other organizations including our own. Call your NRA reps and tell them what you think and why. If you feel the that the executive vice president needs to go, tell them why. If you are a voting member of the NRA, know your board members and vote for those that will do the right thing. These organizations represent you and me. We need to speak up or things will not change for the better.  

By Harold Moskowitz

A “blacklist” is a compiled list of “undesirables” to be cut off from a basic necessity. It was once used by Pennsylvania coal mine owners. They compiled and shared lists of “trouble makers” who had been identified as union organizers. Being blacklisted prevented a man from being able to find work. In our time, blacklisting has advanced from unionbusting to the cutting off of credit and to interference in legal commerce.

The financial industry has become an increasing danger to the firearms industry. Allum Bokhari at Breitbart News has investigated financial blacklisting. He has stated that: “Thanks to the encroachment of progressive ideology into the financial industry – including major credit card companies like VISA, Discover, and Mastercard -- it has become a reality.”

Our 21st century economy depends upon access to credit and, in our increasingly cashless society, to be able to have credit card purchase transactions processed. This reality gives the relatively few corporations providing these necessities tremendous power through financial blacklisting. Pressure can be exerted on firearm-related companies to act in certain proscribed ways to avoid being dropped as a financial services customer.

In Spring 2018, First National Bank of Omaha stopped offering the NRA VISA card. Republic Bank ended the NRA VISA Prepaid Card. Bank of America refuses to work with any company producing “military style firearms.” J.P.Morgan Chase limits business with gun companies. CitiBank refuses to service any retailer which sells “high capacity” magazines or sells firearms to adults younger than 21. Bank of America has cut off services to any firearms maker producing or selling military style weapons for civilians. It also requires firearm retailers to perform background checks on customers. None of the firearms sales may be to adults younger than 21. Failure to meet these requirements will result in termination of financial services. It has also hinted at future requirements for gun manufacturing clients which might dictate the types of permissible firearms and which retailers would be allowed to sell those firearms.

One major bank resisted pressure from the New York Times and others to show “corporate responsibility.” In October, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank granted a $40 million line of credit to Sturm, Ruger and Company. According to Bloomberg News, this was in addition to the $431 million in financing that Wells Fargo had already given to gun companies since 2012. In an open letter, the management wrote that “the bank does not believe that the American public wants banks to decide which legal products consumers can and cannot buy.” Wells Fargo should be applauded and rewarded for its “backbone” with our patronage.

Not satisfied with these types of unwarranted interference with legal commerce, the Times in December, 2018 tried to exert pressure on credit card issuers to monitor customers’ firearm-related buying habits and to blacklist gun purchases. It suggested that banks “unwittingly finance mass shootings” by allowing individuals to use their cards for the purchase of firearms. It wants credit card companies to put systems in place to detect firearm purchases and to either decline them at the point of sale or to flag them to see how much money an individual is spending on guns. Their goal is for credit card issuers and card transaction processors to collectively set new rules for the sale of guns. All of this pressure is based upon the Progressive Left’s value of “corporate responsibility.”

Under the “social responsibility” banner, Pay Pal, Square, Stripe, and Apple Pay, already are refusing to allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms. Now, the Times is pressuring the biggest customers of these payment processing companies. Corporations like McDonald’s, Starbucks, Amazon, CVS and others that publicly refer to “social responsibility” are urged to collectively pressure the payment processing companies to end the handling of gun sale transactions. What would stop this type of pressure from eventually extending to restrictions of the purchases of ammunition types, accessories, and even reloading equipment?

The Progressive Liberals, socialists and Marxists among us realize that they cannot impose their dystopian, tyrannical utopia on the nation until the potential for determined, effective armed resistance through the Second Amendment has been rendered impossible. After each incident of multiple homicide perpetrated by mentally disturbed individuals in gun-free zones, they incrementally chip away at the ability of the citizenry to remain armed in a meaningful way.

This article has focused upon financial blacklisting, a “pincer movement” in the Progressive Left’s multi-front war on the Second Amendment. If they succeed, this nation will be at a “tipping point.” Not just commercial entities are potentially endangered by this assault on freedom. Could your personal credit card be terminated in the future by its issuer because of your monitored donations to the NRA or to other groups which credit card companies might view with contempt?

To quote again from Allum Bokhari: “… to be shut off from an entire financial system. That is the terrifying new threat to freedom that Western society must now contend with.” 

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

One thing that should irritate everyone is a statement taken out of context to create an invalid impression; an impression counter to one we would get if made in context.

Why is this concept of “in context” so important to Second Amendment advocates?

The “in context” principle should apply when interpreting our Constitution. Each individual part should be interpreted in the overall context within which the Constitution was written and that context is, beyond any reasonable doubt, to narrowly limit the federal government’s power. Even the far left that advocates an all-powerful federal government are conceding this when they argue the Constitution is out of date and needs changing. They are, in fact, agreeing that the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government that they wish to expand.

The Second Amendment says that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but taken in the context of a Constitution which limits federal power, it also implies that a limited federal government has not the power to chip away at that right.

And before anyone gets excited about the states having this power, the Fourteenth Amendment says:“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Therefore, every state law is also subject to the “in context” concept of how our privileges and immunities are interpreted.

Let’s look at the framing of our Constitution in an historically accurate context to prove my point about limited government.

During and after the Revolutionary War, the 13 former colonies became states. Not states as we think of them now, but “Nation States”. Each state viewed themselves as self-governing sovereign states, but they also saw the need for some sort of cooperative arrangement, so they adopted the Articles of Confederation to define their relationship. Words have meanings and a confederation is a union of sovereign states, united for purposes of common action.

A later example of nations preserving their individuality while engaging in cooperative actions was during World War II. The “Allies” consisted of many sovereign countries: USA, England, France, Poland, etc. No one believes these countries gave up their individual status as sovereign countries by uniting against Germany, Italy and Japan.

After the Revolutionary War, the “Nation States” preserved their individuality but within a few years it became evident that the thirteen “Nation States” needed a stronger arrangement than a confederation, for self-protection and for economic reasons. But these “Nation States” had a great fear of a powerful central government trampling on State’s and individual’s rights. So, they built many elements into the Constitution to prevent a runaway government. Examples of what we refer to as “Checks and Balances” are: three coequal branches of government; a legislative branch divided into two houses each representing different constituencies; the Electoral College; voting on a contested Presidential election.

Fear of a strong government almost stopped the Constitution from being approved by the states until a Bill of Rights was promised. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights being needed as they believed the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to take away those rights. (Thank goodness they lost that argument about the need for a Bill of Rights.) Many people will be surprised to know that New York State was one of the “Nation States” that would not approve the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was promised.

The first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights have to do with protecting our individual rights from the government while the tenth amendment takes another tack and gives further evidence that the Constitution was meant to limit the federal government’s power. Number ten says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by it to the States respectively, and to the people”.

The idea of a constitutionally limited government held sway until Franklin Roosevelt became President – although an earlier President, Woodrow Wilson, would also have shredded the Constitution if he had been more capable. Roosevelt used the Great Depression crisis to destroy the Tenth Amendment and 140 years of limited federal government precedent.

An example of one part of the Constitution being interpreted out -of-context of a limited government was FDR’s overuse of the “Commerce Clause”. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce…among the several states…” Roosevelt’s administration said that a farmer was engaged in interstate commerce even though the farmer did not sell his products in interstate commerce and only sold them locally or used them himself. FDR’s rationale was that by not engaging in interstate commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce. FDR’s insane trampling of the Constitution was only possible with the help of the other branches of the government as the Supreme Court upheld FDR’s decision!

Those of us who are constitutional fundamentalists – like Justice Antonin Scalia - believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in line with the meaning of the words when they were written. If those words need changing or updating to provide for a more powerful government, there is a way of amending it by approval of the States. It is not subject to judges amending it for any reason, no reason, or political reasons.

When an amendment is approved, it becomes as much a part of the Constitution as the first seven articles that were originally approved. The Amendments are not an add-on that can be ignored at will. They are the Constitution and a limited federal government does not have the power to infringe on them. Any interpretation of any part of the Constitution must be made with the acknowledgement that the Constitution very narrowly limits the ability of the federal government or state governments to infringe on our rights.