frontlines

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the far left that advocates an all-powerful federal government are conceding this when they argue the Constitution is out of date and needs changing.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. 

Rob McNally, Chairman of the Board & Tim Andrews, Board Member at Large

In recent years we’re all aware of the concerns many have regarding a clear understanding of our country’s traditions and values — whether it’s disrespecting our flag or our national anthem. It can be blamed on poor parenting or even our educational system. Why is there such disregard for our country’s traditions and values? What is the solution? It takes little to point the finger of blame or to rally like minds to the faults of this country. It takes another approach altogether to develop solutions for those problems.

Organizations are made of various personalities. Sometimes those personalities disagree with how to implement solutions to problems, or worse, spend time pointing those fingers rather than developing the necessary solutions to society’s ills. Typically, when that happens splits occur. The best example of this is how our religious denominations have occurred over the centuries. The only time such a division occurs is when there is a split in philosophy, not so much in the ultimate goal.

We have recently experienced just such events within groups of Second Amendment supporters and their organizations. Ultimately, the goal still remains the same. The only difference is in how those in the various organizations believe we should get there. Thus far, none of us have been all that successful. I will advocate that we need to refocus on working together rather than focusing on the differences between us. Too many times those differences are the focus and drive any discussion. Unfortunately, even four or five voices focusing on differences distract the bulk of the organization from the ultimate goal. Truly, if the goal is the ultimate destination, then why should the focus be on intermediate obstacles? Address such obstacles, determine solutions for the good of the organization and move on.

As Tony Robbins has said, “Stay committed to your decisions, but stay flexible in your approach.” Financial responsibility is certainly a key factor in any organization, but when that focus over-takes the organization’s focus, those involved lose track of pursuing revenue and other activities necessary in the final goal. For Second Amendment organizations such as our own, that final goal is restoring rights that have and are being removed from us consistently. Not only the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, but also those guaranteed under the First Amendment particularly the right to ‘petition the government for a redress of grievances’; the Fourth Amendment ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures’; the Fifth Amendment ‘…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’; the Ninth Amendment ‘The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’; the Fourteenth Amendment ‘….No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’…. The point here being that fiduciary responsibility is not in and of itself our goal, but an avenue toward that goal and a responsibility to our members. While focusing on that responsibility and maintaining its integrity, we must still pursue revenue to progress toward the ultimate goal.

As we all know, it takes revenue to make things happen. The thing that most allows revenue pursuit is commitment to the ultimate goal; not revenue pursuit in and of itself. That commitment requires allthose people this article began about. EVERY organization, EVERY person who is willing to focus on the goal. No organization can afford to be waylaid by those who do not demonstrate this commitment. The Scottish author William Hutchison Murry once said “Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.”.

The point that needs be made here is we must all, every Second Amendment organization, be unified and committed in that ultimate goal while pursuing different avenues of approach to it. Meanwhile, every member of individual organizations must be committed internally to one another. We cannot afford to pursue distracting avenues which misdirect us from our ultimate goal…. the violation of rights which we are experiencing as mentioned previously. No one organization, or subdivision of an organization, can hope to have any true result toward that goal without such commitment. An American writer, John D. MacDonald was quoted as saying “At times it seems as if arranging to have no commitment of any kind to anyone would be a special freedom. But in fact, the whole idea works in reverse. The most deadly commitment of all is to be committed only to one’s self. Some come to realize this after they are in the nursing home.”

In other words, our strength is in our unity, not our differences. Commitment is primary and the goal of resurrecting our lost rights the ultimate goal. That entails several factors. Our members; their involvement and their commitment; their willingness to get involved beyond the basic membership level. Their seeking opportunities to become further involved beyond their membership fees. The voters; shifting the apathy and lack of confidence that exists these days in the ‘system’. Education (the last word in our acronym S.C.O.P.E.) comes down to a one-onone scenario more often than not. Unfortunately, the bulk of our society does not greatly involve itself in publications, social media or internet access to the news. We are awash daily in information, but a minority of people actually engage in it beyond the briefest exposure. Much like ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’ are two distinctly different functions.

So join us! Or join another organization better to your liking! But actually ‘join’ beyond putting membership fees forward and expecting someone else to commit for you. Take that commitment upon yourself. With your time or with your money, or both. Spread the word. Become a leader, an organizer, or participate on the local level in getting out and conversing with those who have chosen apathy or action. Get involved! We ALL need you. We need your commitment! As tennis great Martina Navratilova said so well, “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

Your donations can be submitted at https://scopeny2a.org/donate-to-SCOPE. Your interest in volunteering can be directed to your local chapter chair or your other Directors on the Board at the state level. All contacts are listed on our website.

By Michael Giuliano

A re-engaged membership and a peaceful succession to the office of President (although many of us still hedged our bets and bought some gun raffle tickets) marked the S.C.O.P.E. annual meeting on April 27 in Syracuse. Nick Massal was elected President. The other officers were reelected for another term. Battle plans were formulated. Members and directors left their respective meetings with new ideas to reach and educate the public and local elected officeholders.

While a comparison to James Monroe’s so-called Era of Good Feelings might seem overblown, few opportunities for such comparison have presented themselves in New York State of late. The S.C.O.P.E. membership should adopt the example of Monroe and the renewed national spirit at the end of the War of 1812 as a guide for our own collaboration and development of an action plan. S.C.O.P.E. needs a renewed optimism to grow and thrive. At the meeting, there was a vigorous exchange of ideas and proposals, and the sense abounded that our efforts this year will be supported by a solid lineup of leaders across the state.

Among the presentations delivered to the membership, Wayne County S.C.O.P.E. led the charge, offering a progress update on the drafting of a model resolution/ ordinance for county and town boards, commissions, and legislatures throughout Western and Central New York, that will reaffirm the officeholders’ commitment to due process and gun rights. The painstaking efforts by Don Smith and Bob Brannan on this initiative was quite evident as are the efforts of many others both within and outside of S.C.O.P.E. who are working tirelessly on it.

Several chapter chairs were partaking in their first statewide board meeting and a vibrant discussion was had on various suggestions for improvements within the organization. The meetings produced spirited debate; the discussions were wide-ranging and included fundraising proposals.

Monroe County Chair Gene Nolan reported on his chapter’s recent meetings with several legislators. Among the hot topics of discussion that arose at one of Monroe’s recent meetings was the ever-popular idea of dividing New York. He also proposed some alternative chapter funding methods.

An issue critical to the organization’s future arose during the discussions: Should S.C.O.P.E. reach out more overtly to those who support other fundamental freedoms such as free speech and due process? A potential update to the S.C.O.P.E. mission statement was proposed by new Wyoming chairman Gary Gardner. The new statement, if adopted, would reaffirm our commitment to the many other rights within the Bill of Rights, including due process which is so beleaguered in New York. This might broaden S.C.O.P.E.’s popular base of support to include those who aren’t specifically pro-gun.

Prominently absent in Syracuse was 2nd Vice-President Jack Prendergast, as he was on an assigned mission, as a Yates Republican official, to rid us of Ed Cox. His punishment for being absent however, inflicted by the board in absentia, was to be nominated for another year in his V.P. position.

1st Vice-President Andrea Elliot inspired us with her interpretation of the struggles we face and the perseverance we must maintain. Tim Andrews’ term as President expired and he was elected to an at-large position on the board.

The late-meeting assurance by Budd Schroeder that he would remain a cantankerous gun rights advocate may not sound like a harmonious note, but one had to be present at the meeting to realize that it added bite and punctuation to an optimistic S.C.O.P.E. assembly.

Budd announced his retirement from the board of directors effective in May, timed to coincide with his 54th anniversary with S.C.O.P.E. It was Schroeder’s waggish promise to remain “mean” (his word) and irascible in retirement that in some ways capped the dual meetings in Syracuse. Indicating he still planned to stay active with Firing Lines and political debate, he wished everyone well and praised the quality of the new board and leadership.

The announcement framed a perfect opportunity both to reflect on S.C.O.P.E.’s long history and to concentrate on the future.

As we prepared to part, Nick Massal, as the new President, addressed the assembled board and members. Offering his plans for the year, he reminded everyone of the challenging work that is ahead for all members.

Much has been accomplished since 1965 and yet so much more remains to be done. Albany would have it no other way. The struggle is never over. Liberty must always be guarded.

With the retirement of Budd Schroeder, and with Tim Andrews having finished his terms as President, a S.C.O.P.E. founder and a longtime S.C.O.P.E. leader leave the duty of engaging the future to S.C.O.P.E.’s newly-elected leader Nick Massal—and indeed, they leave this responsibility to all of us.  

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

What can we/I do? This is a question I have asked myself quite a few times – the immediate answer is nothing. First, we didn’t get to this point overnight – it has been a work in progress by those who wish to take away our rights and establish control. I could go into the biblical explanation that you should have known this was coming, the Bible explains it, and we cannot stop it. That doesn’t mean we roll over and play dead and let them win. It may be happening, but it doesn’t mean we have to let it happen – the exact timetable is not given and we are told to resist evil.

As I said, we didn’t get this way over night and we are not going to get things back to the way they should be over night. They knew “we” would not stand for a mass change and a big grab all at once – too obvious and massive resistance immediately – revolt. As it was explained to me years ago, if you have a large chub of bologna and someone steals a large chunk of it, you will notice it right away and go after the thief to try to recover your loss. BUT – if the thief comes and takes a very thin slice now, a thin slice later and another later on, you will not notice until much later and by then there may not be much you can do except preserve what you have left – this is our present predicament.

Can we get all of our rights back? Possibly, but it IS highly unlikely. We can get most of them back. It is possible that we get all of them. We need to work at it and we will have to do it incrementally. The (UN) SAFE Act was one of those big chunks they took in the dark of the night (literally) and having activist judges in place helped them ensure the law stayed on the books. Now we need to continue to chip away at the statute. It will be a slow process. The best way is through the ‘E’ in S.C.O.P.E. We must educate politicians, the public, and the news media.

We have all heard about taking a liberal shooting to educate him or her on firearms and the fun of shooting. My advice: Do It. Also take your local politicians and judges shooting – some chapters have already done so with great success. Some of us have politicians and judges that are already pro-gun. Take them anyways and have some good conversation about the possible solutions you each might have. You never know where this may take us!

Know any reporters? Invite them to go shooting. Like anyone else you would take out shooting, teach them safety in shooting, proper techniques, and good shooting etiquette. Answer their questions and be honest.

Even if you don’t know (but know of) a reporter, contact your local newspaper, radio station or TV station and see if you can contact one of them. It doesn’t necessarily have to be for an article, but it may lead to one. If you can get several to come at one time and need assistance in teaching them the basics, get a qualified instructor to assist you and make a day of it at your local shooting range.

Above all, be courteous and exercise great care, especially on the range with live ammunition. The last thing we need is some sort of accident on the range while trying to show liberals the fun and quality of the shooting sports. We are trying to inform and educate – win them over if possible. If nothing else, they will see we are the responsible citizens that we have always been, fighting for our rights including gun rights and due process.  

By Ralph Esposito

Yes, with the loss of the NYS senate to total democrat control last election, NY gun owners are starting to feel the love from Governor Cuomo and his minions. They have introduced and are in the process of passing a number of new gun control laws under the so called “SAFE Act 2.” These include:

• Red Flag laws that could revoke your Second Amendment Rights if you are suspected of being a risk to yourself or others. This includes reporting from your family doctor (s) or children's teachers.
• Going from a 3 to 30 day waiting periods for those who get a delay on a NICS check. With today's extensive data bases on all of us and computer information retrieval 30 days is excessive. 
• Prohibit teachers and other employees from carrying licensed handguns on school property even if it was permitted by the school district. 
• Banning bump stocks. While not a big thing it does set precedent for banning features and accessories. 
• Mandatory storage of all firearms owned in an approved gun safe 
• Mandatory liability insurance if you own a gun. 
• Background checks for ammunition. 
• Limits on ammunition purchases for some guns. Purchases will be allowed only 3 times a year. Also limiting the amount purchased to twice the guns capacity. 
• Banning guns made with the 3D printing technology.

Some of these have passed others are going through committee now. With the democrats in control those that have not already passed stand a high likelihood of passing.

All is not lost as there are several lawsuits challenging specifics of the SAFE Act still in litigation. We even had a win recently when the ban on stun guns in NYS was struck down. The court ruled that stun guns may not be banned, however the state may place restrictions on them. Stay tuned for the 2019 roller coaster. 

By Harold Moskowitz

The term “boycott” has been around since Captain Charles C. Boycott was subjected to social ostracism during the Irish Land War of 1880. He was a land agent for an absentee British landlord. An entire town socially isolated him. The goal was to pressure him into lowering rents and decreasing the number of evictions of Irish tenant farmers. In our nation, the “boycott” became an effective form of pressure by labor unions to improve working conditions. It was also used to help end discrimination against African-Americans. Historically, it has always been used as an organized form of pressure to change conditions viewed as “unfair.”

Presently, it is being used as an economic weapon against businesses associated with the firearms industry in general and the National Rifle Association in particular. In the Progressive Liberal “war” against the right to keep and bear arms, the boycott is no longer a weapon aimed at unfair practices. Today, it targets the God-given individual right to self-defense passed down to us by the Founders. The N.R.A., seeking to preserve that right for future generations has become the “lightning rod” of their efforts to end firearm ownership in our nation.

It doesn’t take more than a relative handful of emails repeated over a period of days with anti-N.R.A. or anti-gun messages to pressure corporate public relations directors. Fear of perceived negative public opinion is sufficient to produce changes in policy toward firearm related sales and the N.R.A. This pressure is easiest to achieve in the aftermath of a mass shooting.

In the week following the Parkland, Florida shooting, two anti-gun organizations were ready for instant anti-N.R.A. action. According to Kristina Monllos, senior editor for Adweek, a $230,000 two-page ad was purchased in the New York Times. It listed all Congressional members who had accepted N.R.A. political contributions along with their office phone numbers. An action plan called for the use of the hash tag (#) “Throw Them Out.” The ad was put together by a Progressive Liberal counseling firm called SKD Knickerbocker. Not surprisingly some of the firm’s political clients have been Barack Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Michael Bloomberg.

After Parkland, many corporations were pressured “morally” to make public their positions on gun related matters or to break any economic arrangements with the N.R.A. Rachel Siegel, a national business reporter for the Washington Post, wrote (3/21/18) that within two weeks of the shootings, four retailers altered their policies on firearm-related sales. Wal-Mart stopped selling firearms and ammunition to anyone under twenty-one years old. Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field and Stream stopped selling AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines. They also raised their firearm sales age to twenty-one. The grocery chain Kroger, owner of Fred Meyer general stores, raised their firearm sales age to twenty-one. L.L.Bean also has stopped selling firearms and ammunition to those under twenty-one. In addition, L. L. Bean felt it necessary to announce that “L. L. Bean does not and never has supported the N.R.A.” The Mountain Equipment Co-op stopped selling equipment brands such as Bolle, Bushnell, Camel Bak, Camp Chef, and Jimmy Styks because they are made by Vista Outdoors, a Utah-based firearm manufacturer. Another outdoor equipment retailer, REI also chose to boycott products made by Vista Outdoors.

Several transportation and hospitality corporations ended their N.R.A. member discount programs. They include: Delta Airlines; United Airlines; Enterprise Holdings (Alamo, Enterprise, National); Hertz; Avis; and Budget. Best Western and Wyndham hotels. Stopped offering N.R.A. discounts. Sirva Corporation which owns Allied Van Lines and North American Van Lines ended N.R.A. member discounts. Additionally, FED EX publicly criticized UPS for continuing to ship items purchased from the N.R.A. Store and stated its opposition to the sale of “assault rifles” to civilians.

The following computer associated corporations ended N.R.A. discounts: True Car vehicle buying service; SimpliSafe digital premises protection; Teledoctele Medicare service; Personify Group Technologies; Paramount Rx prescription drug discount; and Symantec (Norton) computer anti-virus protection.

A more serious threat for the N.R.A. and firearm owners are the actions taken by some banks and credit card issuers. They control access to credit and financial services for the N.R.A. and firearm-related businesses. First National Bank of Omaha, the nation’s largest privately held bank, has stopped offering the N.R.A. Visa card. Republic Bank has ended the N.R.A. Visa Prepaid Card (debit card). Other banks which have taken steps to use their financial power to control and weaken the firearms industry are J. P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Amalgamated Bank, and Bank of America. Citi Group announced that it will drop any retailer selling high-capacity magazines or bump stocks. It requires its retailers to do background checks and to raise the firearm purchase age to twenty-one. It hinted at future restrictions requiring manufacturers to stop making certain types of weapons and to deny certain retailers shipments of their firearms. The Amalgamated Bank requires that its retail clients not sell any weapons or ammunition. Bank of America stopped doing business with any firearms manufacturer that makes or sells “military style” weapons for civilian use.

According to Statistica, The Statistic Portal, about forty-three percent of U.S. homes own at least one firearm. That could translate into over 100,000,000 firearm owners. We should all learn from the Progressive Liberals. Even a handful of calls and emails have an impact on corporate America. We should “push back” against the misguided bullying actions of these businesses. Together we should also use our “collective” spending power to reward supporters of Second Amendment rights and boycott those which help to weaken and destroy those rights!  

By Henry Kramer

For many people, the U.S. court system is what they see on Law and Order or in old Perry Mason episodes. It usually relates to the criminal law system and often at the state – not federal - level. Although there are exceptions, the basic structures of the federal and state court systems are pretty much the same although technically different.

All Americans, except those in the District of Columbia, and in US territories such as Guam, have two sovereigns, one federal and one state. County and local governments are not sovereign but only sub-divisions of state government.

Some topics are covered exclusively under federal law such as radio stations, others such as gun regulation are shared by federal and state governments, and some, such as traffic laws, are by and large left to the states. Where state and federal laws overlap, there can be problems. For example, while some states have legalized marijuana under state law, people in those states can still be prosecuted for violation of federal drug law, as marijuana use remains illegal nationally.

As for the court system, both federal and state systems usually feature three levels of courts of general jurisdiction (excluding traffic courts, small claims courts, and municipal and county courts).

The first (lower) level of courts tries cases directly and decides both issues of fact and law. In New York State, for historical reasons, this level is called the Supreme Court. At the federal level, these are called U.S. District Courts. Decisions made at this level in New York State are only binding in that specific case. At the Federal level, these courts would, historically, not issue nationwide constitutional decisions but this has been lost since Donald Trump became President and the most left leaning U.S. district judges now issue nationwide injunctions.

Then, there are intermediate level appeals courts. People generally have a right to use them if they wish to challenge a lower court decision. In the federal system the appellate court is called the Court of Appeals and in the New York State system it is known as the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court. These appellate courts mostly decide only issues of law and do not hold new trials. In New York State there are four regional Appellate Division Courts. At the federal level, there are four regional U.S. district courts for the Eastern, Southern, Northern and Western Districts of New York. In New York State, decisions of these state appellate courts are only binding precedents for that district. At the federal level, decisions of the Courts of Appeals are only binding within their jurisdictional area though they do carry weight in the other U.S. Circuit courts.

At the top of the pyramids are the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest courts of the states (In New York State the highest court is the Court of Appeals). Both the top level federal and state courts usually have discretion over which cases they will take, so not all appeals to them will be heard. In New York State, the Court of Appeals sets statewide precedents but these decisions do not bind courts in other states. The U.S. Supreme Court sets national precedents. State courts have the last word on state law issues but it is possible to cross from the state system’s top court to the U.S. Supreme Court if there are federal issues or constitutional issues at stake. You may remember Bush v. Gore, where the U.S. Supreme Court considered Florida election law in light of the federal constitution.

The federal courts generally deal with violation of federal law, cases between citizens of different states subject to a certain minimum dollar level, and cases raising federal or federal constitutional issues such as Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court can overrule decisions of the highest state court.

The major difference between criminal and civil law is that in criminal courts proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict while in civil courts only proof by the weight of the evidence (more likely than not) is required. Juries may be smaller than twelve in civil cases and a jury may not have to be unanimous.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, that is they can interpret and declare whether a law or government act is constitutional or not. However our top court sometimes strays into making policy decisions or issuing decisions grounded more in social and political factors than strictly in law. The Court may not always be right but what it declares to be the law is the law. It is difficult, but not impossible, to get the U.S. Supreme court to reverse a decision.

In this context, gun rights are the only kind of property now protected directly by the constitution by name. Yet, they are among the most regulated types of property and one of the few rights that may make you a criminal for carrying your property across state lines when an American citizen travels from state to state.

The system described varies a bit from state to state but most U.S. court systems operate pretty much within this framework.

While some state judges are elected and others are appointed, federal judges are appointed for life on good behavior. It is important to note how judges are appointed to our courts. These methods of appointment show how important it is who we elect Governor or President, as they are the gatekeepers. A long term Governor or President has the opportunity to pack these courts with judges who share their philosophies and may serve for decades after the appointing Governor or President has left office.

In New York State, the lowest level judges (Supreme Court) are directly elected by the voters for terms of 14 years and may be reelected. New York State Court of Appeals judges are nominated by the Governor subject to confirmation by the State Senate for terms of fourteen years.

At the federal level, all judges are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. They are appointed for life on good behavior and may only be removed by impeachment and conviction but may resign voluntarily at any time. Judges often time their resignations so they can be replaced by a President who is likely to nominate someone who shares their judicial views.  

By Rob McNally S.C.O.P.E. Chairman

The development and drafting of the Constitution led to a fierce debate. There were essentially two sides in this debate. There were those who favored a strong central federal government, and those who supported individual rights and states’ rights. Sound familiar? The difference is those that favored a strong federal government felt the individual rights added through the Bill of Rights later were inherent in such a strong federal government without the need of stating them explicitly.

Negotiations during the Constitution Convention of September 12, 1787 rejected a series of individual right guarantees because the primary consideration was to set forth machinery with which to keep the federal government functioning in its infancy. It was suggested in many of the writings of those in attendance over that summer, that the main fear was another prolonged debate over individual rights would prevent getting this mechanism up and running. Federalists believed this should be the primary focus (getting the government running) and had left out many of the guarantees later provided for in the Bill of Rights. Their argument was that Anti-Federalists promised just such a prolonged debate further in the fall of 1787 if such rights were not included. Therefore, the compromise that was reached was that a Bill of Rights would be considered once the basic Constitution was ratified.

Two of our most well known Founding Fathers were on opposite sides of this fence. Thomas Jefferson, known as an anti-federalist, did not attend the September convention, but wrote a letter in December 1787 to James Madison, another well -known founder, who sat on the federalist side of this fence. In the letter, Jefferson related that “[a] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth” and that it was a mistake to leave such out of the Constitution. Madison on the other hand was concerned that a more protracted debate, should such guarantees of individual rights be added, would foil any attempt at ratification. A year later (by the fall of 1788), Madison had switched sides and begun to agree that a Bill of Rights was necessary. This was after the ratification of the Constitution had been achieved by 11 current states in July 1788.

The first proposal for a Bill of Rights contained 12 amendments, not 10, and in fact, the task of pursuing this was undertaken by Madison himself. He was known to have referred to his errand as “a nauseous project” due to the litany of details that went into the number of considered ‘rights’ that needed to be declared.

You may do your own research to review all those ‘rights’ that were not specified, or ultimately were rejected either through debate or lack of ratification by the states. However, it is thought that a huge debt of gratitude should be provided to those arguing against such a Bill of Rights or more particularly, the entire Constitution for as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[t]here has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.” George Washington was known to remark in agreement, “They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.”

The largest argument against such a Bill of Rights were those who felt such rights needed no ‘spelling out’ in that they were unalienable and of such a nature as not needing any such guarantee, with the 2nd Amendment regarding self-defense and possession of arms being an example. But because of the ratification of this document we have a governmental ‘guarantee’; not a right ‘granted’, but a right ‘recognized’ by our own government as ‘God-given’ and documented in our Bill of Rights for reference.

Sources:

• http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html

•https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#1788_ratification

By Tom Reynolds S.C.O.P.E. Treasurer and Board Member

The Marjorie Stoneman Douglas commission was tasked with investigating and reporting the facts of that tragic high school shooting in Florida.

They recommended that staff and teachers, who are screened and trained, be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The reason given was that the shooter killed or wounded 34 people in less than 4 minutes. Obviously, no law enforcement officer in the world could have responded from off campus and engaged the shooter in that short amount of time. (As one famous saying goes, “When police are only minutes away, you need something that goes 1,500 feet per second.”)

Since that time, a Florida judge, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled in a related case that the sheriff’s deputies were not constitutionally obligated to protect the students. This ruling did not break new ground since there were similar previous rulings.

Should police departments that print “Protect and Serve” on their police cars have to scrape “Protect” off as false advertising?

From a positive standpoint, the overwhelming number of police officers are willing to put their lives on the line to “Protect” even if not constitutionally obligated to do so. From a negative standpoint, how do you know which type of officer will show up when your life is threatened?

New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has come out firmly against arming teachers. He said, “I really don't want to see a teacher in the front of the room drop his or her eraser or chalk and pull out a gun and start firing at a person who walks into the back of the classroom with a gun…it's almost comedic, if it wasn't so tragic.”

Is Cuomo afraid students might potentially be shot in a possible crossfire? What about those students who will definitely be shot if there is no armed person there to stop the shooter? The latter instance better fits the definition of tragic.

Oakland University, in southeast Michigan, does not allow guns on campus. As an alternative, they have armed faculty, staff and students with hockey pucks. In a spur -of-the-moment comment, the university’s police chief first suggested it, since he was once hit by a hockey puck and it did,“…a fair amount of damage.” He later admitted that his suggestion, “…was not a well thought out strategy.”The university’s branch of the American Association of University Professors Union disagreed with him and it purchased and armed the faculty, staff and students with hockey pucks.

To paraphrase Sean Connery in the movie The Untouchables, “Only an Oakland University faculty member would bring a hockey puck to a gun fight”.

Kate Steinle was shot and killed by a “criminal migrant” felon who had been deported five times. He should have been deported six times, since the San Francisco police department had him in custody after his release from federal prison, but San Francisco is a sanctuary city that does not cooperate with ICE and they released him.

As Kate Steinle lay on the ground in her father’s arms she kept saying, “Dad, help me, help me”. I cannot imagine a worse moment for father.

I don’t have to repeat the idiotic claims by the liberal left that would have us believe that open borders and sanctuary cities are the “moral” way of doing things.

Thankfully, the Second Amendment protects – not grants but protects -the right of self-defense. Unlike the liberal left, almost all gun owners are non-violent and law abiding. However, the liberal left keeps pushing more and more extreme measures that put our lives and property in danger while simultaneously trying to take away the guns that protect us. It’s not the Constitution - since the left doesn’t believe in it – but only the fact that we already have guns that has stopped them short of full confiscation. Even people like Cuomo have to be concerned about pushing people with guns too far.

Unfortunately, there are people on the extreme left who would rejoice to see America divided and destroyed. And yes, I’m speaking about you, Barack Obama. 

By Tom Reynolds S.C.O.P.E. Treasurer and Board Member

On May 21, 1776, the New York Provincial Congress issued a “Report on Disaffection.”It said: “Whereas his Excellency George Washington hath lately exhibited to this congress sundry information and evidence, from which it appears that the enemies of American liberty have a general communication with each other through this and part of neighboring Colonies…and there are also several ill-disposed persons in the City and County of New York… many of whom will most probably take up arms on the part of our foes…”

Enemies of American liberty in New York? Ill-disposed persons in New York City who will most probably take up arms on the part of our foes? Whom could they have been talking about?

Answer: The Governor of New York (William Tryon) and the Mayor of New York City (David Mathews) were these ill-disposed people and enemies of American liberty.

Nothing has changed in 243 years!

The Governor and Mayor were actively recruiting members of the Continental Army to switch sides and fight with the British. In addition, they had formed a plot to kidnap or kill George Washington.

Tryon later became a Major General in the British Army and led raids which slaughtered unarmed civilians and burned down homes, churches and farms.

Mathews escaped jail and returned to be the Mayor of New York City (during the British occupation) and, later, becomes Attorney General of Cape Breton Island.

With all the effort to erase any trace of history offensive to liberals, especially Confederate Generals, surely such disreputable persons as a New York Governor and a New York City Mayor would have their legacies erased. Not so! Fort Tryon Park near the northern tip of Manhattan above 190th street as well as a street in the Bronx and streets and buildings in Albany are named after him. Mathews has only the Mathews-Muliner Playground in the Bronx to memorialize him.

It’s well to remember that the Revolutionary War started at Lexington and Concord when the British tried to confiscate guns and ammunition. The New York Governor and the Mayor of New York City then, as today, sided with gun confiscation. Hopefully, the current officeholders’ efforts will be as successful as their predecessor’s earlier efforts.

Read more about this in Brad Meltzer’s The First Conspiracy.