frontlines

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. 

By David L. Sutfin, Steuben County

The noose of socialism is ever tightening. All gun owners across our state and this country, if combined, would be a resolute voice. Think about what could be accomplished if gun owners stood together. How can we sit back and let socialism become the reigning doctrine? Too many people believe that this cannot happen, but we are falling fast. The ‘New Green Deal’, abortions, illegal immigration and voting, and the never-ending call for gun control are precursors to an eventuality that is, in a word, frightening.

We cannot allow this. How many of the Pro-Second Amendment groups are bickering amongst themselves, all looking to be the ‘leader’, wasting time and resources to achieve the result we all want? We need to open dialogue across the divide and leave the bickering to Congress. In the meantime, we need to get serious, organize, and stop standing alone.

Remember why we are fighting: Our forefathers joined forces without phones, social media and other technologies and advancements we have today. How? Hard work, courage, and dedication to each other, and above all, to liberty.

Write letters, to newspapers and your representatives. Go to meetings, town halls, and share ideas, even if you think your ideas won’t change anything. Your idea could spark the flames of change when combined with other great ideas of like-minded citizens and could prove successful. I have no doubt that every member of SCOPE has plenty to say at home. We yell at the TV and debate with friends and co-workers. But how many of us shout our thoughts and ideas at home only to sit quietly at a meeting, if you even attend. We need to build our voice, let them hear it in Albany, Washington, D.C. and everywhere. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, “We must hang together or surely we will hang separately.”

During the American Revolution, the Continental Army and the state militias initially could not win battles because they didn’t work together. General Washington had the foresight to assign Baron von Steuben, known as the drillmaster of Valley Forge as the Inspector General. He created training techniques to build cohesiveness within the varied militias, in order to create one army. Writing his orders every night in German, they were translated to French then to English for the troops. This was challenging work but he succeeded. The Americans started to win battles and eventually win the war against tyranny. Today, we are not unlike those separate militias: SCOPE, GOA, NYSRPA, NRA. Our strength is in our total numbers, not individual groups.

Fortunately, that same winter, the writings of Thomas Paine reached Valley Forge. General Washington was so inspired by “Common Sense” and “The American Crisis No. 1” that he ordered it read to the troops, most of which were in the midst of deserting or expiring enlistments. These now seemingly forgotten yet famous opening lines stirred the troops to reenlist and stay in the fight. It reads in part: “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

It goes on to remind us that we have to work hard to keep our freedom, especially from tyranny. How can we allow everything that was earned by our forefathers, everything they fought and died for, in each generation, slip into darkness?

We are losing our state and our country to the spread of socialism. What will you do to help in this fight? The time is now and the cause is great.

The founding fathers were bold enough to write their beliefs on paper. They pledged to each other their lives, fortunes and “sacred honor.” They immediately became wanted men, treasonous to the crown. Can’t we as patriots do something for this cause? A quote often attributed to Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, states: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Today it is our gun rights. What will be next and what will you do?

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

     SCOPE’s (and all 2A organizations’) biggest challenge is getting gun owners to vote. Like most people, gun owners won’t react until a crisis hits them like a 2 by 4 over the head. Unfortunately, that crisis is easily predictable based on the previous actions of far-left liberals; once they gain control of the government, they become the government, and they never stop going for more. There is no such thing as “Common sense gun control” to the left, short of total gun confiscation.

     At one time, the “Numbers Racket” was illegal in New York. Never letting a chance to make more money pass them by, politicians drove the “Numbers Racket” out of business by replacing it with LOTTO. At that time, there was a heated debate against the government encouraging gambling. But once their toe-was-in-the-door, gambling became perfectly fine–as long as the government profits. They then moved to licensing casinos. Sports betting followed.

     Whether you are pro- or anti -abortion, the toe-in-the-door syndrome should be evident. When the Supreme Court made abortion legal, they limited it to the time before viability of the unborn baby. Thanks to technological advances, viability is moving closer to conception. But abortion proponents, on the left, are pushing abortion well beyond viability and even proposing murdering the baby after it is born.

     Some on the left are now questioning the value of providing medical care to the aged, something that was unspeakable only ten years ago. Remember the debate over “Death Panels” under Obamacare? It was the toe-in-the-door moment for bureaucrats to eventually decide if you live or die. Will we soon be seeing an organization called “Planned Aging”?

     Anyone want to bet against prostitution becoming legal, as long as the far left can tax it to fund their “free stuff”?

     The important point in all of these is how quickly the left has taken these issues from never publicly spoken of to actual legislative proposals.

     The SAFE Act of 2013 was the toe-in-the-door moment for gun control. It’s been the proverbial slippery slop ever since and the slippery slope just got worse after the 2018 elections.

     Many hunters who only own a shotgun or a rifle have sat quietly on the sideline before and after the SAFE Act was passed. Now that the leftist New York City liberals completely control the New York Government, they are passing multiple additions to the SAFE Act. Will these provoke hunters to some action?

     Thought you were safe from the government by only owning a shotgun? Now the left wants you to get a $1 million liability insurance policy. You will also need to safe store it instead of hanging it on the wall. Failure to do so will result in gun confiscation, fines and imprisonment. How is that for a 2 by 4?

     Want to take someone out hunting for the first time but they don’t have a shotgun? If you let them borrow one of yours, you will need to be next to them at all times. If you should split up, you just broke the law!

     Do you keep a gun for protection? You’ll have to have it “safely stored”. So, if someone is threatening you or your family, simply ask for a time out while you search for your key, unlock the gun, find your bullets and load the gun.

     New York State Assembly Members, based primarily in New York City, are trying to make it unlawful for anyone to hold contests or competitions involving hunting or fishing wildlife. No firearms raffles either.

     On the federal level, the left wants to add semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to the to the national Firearms Act of 1986. These would all have to be registered or else possessing them would be a federal violation.

     Unless gun owners begin to exert themselves - by voting - gun owners will have to be added to the Endangered Species List in order to survive.

     We must get gun owners off their butts and into the voting booth. SCOPE chapters and individual members must not only continue to be active but increase their activity in politics at the local level and like-minded organizations. The left is the enemy of gun owners and, quite frankly, Republicans have been less than pro-active in defending us and many of them need to be replaced.  

By Tim Andrews, S.C.O.P.E. President

     The New York State Senate and Assembly passed legislation (A.2686A and S.2450A) requiring the mandatory storage of firearms, rifles, and shotguns. While the legislation may seem reasonable on the surface, as is often the case with legislation passed with little public input it will do little to protect the most vulnerable. Additionally, the legislation will negatively impact parents and organizations who wish to enjoy the shooting sports with young people.

     Accidents involving firearms with young people are at an all-time low. When accidents do occur it’s likely to be in a home where the firearm is possessed illegally. Thus, the adult perpetrator is not likely to be swayed by a mandatory storage law. Think about it in these terms — if you’re someone who doesn’t consider the safety of your children enough of a reason to practice responsible gun ownership, how in the world is some law passed by Albany politicians going to make a difference? The fact is, “law-abiding gun owners” are some of the safest people on the planet. 

     A better way to address firearm safety, especially for kids who live in less than desirable circumstances, would be to offer training to those children in schools on what to do if they encounter a firearm. If the goal is to protect children award-winning programs like the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program, with the fundamental message of, “Stop, Don’t Touch, Tell An Adult,” would accomplish more than a mandatory storage law that criminals or irresponsible adults would simply ignore.

     Another problem with this legislation is that it provides an exception for a person under the age of 16 who is the holder of a hunting license. That begs the question: what about parents or organizations that want to enjoy the shooting sports with children that don’t require a hunting license? Will Boy Scouts and other youth shooting sports be prohibited with this law? Or how about a parent who wants to teach their child to shoot, because those sports don’t require a hunting license? Will someone under 16 be prohibited from all recreational shooting?

     Finally, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that mandating a firearm be made inoperable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional.

     Whether intended or not, this is another in a series of attacks on law-abiding gun owners. Thousands more children perish each year from drowning, suffocation or motor vehicle accidents than from accidents involving firearms. We’re in the middle of an opioid epidemic where thousands of New York’s children are dying at an alarming rate. This legislation has more to do with politics than saving children.

     We have contacted the governor’s office to urge him not to sign this legislation. He’s often said he’s not trying to take away the rights of law-abiding gun owners, here’s a chance for him to prove it.

     I’m not saying anything you already don’t know when I say we have a very difficult fight in New York State. We can probably claim the mantle as the most anti-gun state in the union. It’s easy for some of us topoint fingers and to cast blame. What’s S.C.O.P.E. doing? What about the NRA and the other gun groups in New York? However, one must remember we’re only as strong as the gun owners who support us. The more engaged the gun owning public is the stronger the pro-Second Amendment groups will be.

     I recently read a comment on social media where a gun owner commented that until he sees positive results, he refuses to join any pro-2A group in New York. Think about that one, his attitude is exactly why we’re losing the battle. How can we win the fight with people walking away? I realize that most of you are the choir and you understand the need to be involved but you are a minority. Only a very small fraction of New York’s gun owners are members of any Second Amendment civil rights group.

     We must grow our numbers. Gone are the days when politicians just wanted to ban semi-automatic rifles. With the unSAFE Act, red flag, and mandatory storage laws every gun owner is a target. Trap shooters, skeet shooters, sporting clays, hunters just to name a few. You’re as much a target as the guy with the AR15 or the AK47. Every person in New York is now one angry neighbor away from having his or her firearms confiscated.

     The only way to turn this state around is with every gun owner joining the fight. This is not the time to walk away. This is the time to join the fight!

     This will be my last column as S.C.O.P.E.’s president. My term is up effective April 27, 2019 when we have our board and members’ meetings and I will not be seeking reelection. I will, however, stay on as a director and support our new leadership and continue the fight for our Second Amendment rights here in New York. Let’s all keep up the fight by asking others to join us. 

By Don Smith

How can the rights of gun owners be balanced with the public interest while preventing another incident like Parkland, Florida?

Here’s an idea: legislators open hearings to design a bill to hold government and its agencies accountable at all levels. Citizens might even be willing to tolerate suspension of due process for government officials if for the common good.

We all understand that government can and will justify any action it takes as being in the public interest and/or an emergency. But it rarely holds itself accountable to the same standards it requires of its citizens.

Let us count the ways government ineptitude permits, contributes to, or causes violence using the Broward County School System as an example.

According to a report in the Miami Herald:

• “...Cruz was never expelled from Broward schools. Legally, he couldn’t be. Under federal law, Nikolas Cruz had a right to a 'free and appropriate' education at a public school near him. His classmates had a right to an education free of fear." The article details a long list of problems stretching back years, including “threat assessments.” (Emphasis added.)
• "While the other students waited in the hallway for their eighth-grade science teacher to let them into the classroom, Cruz would sometimes bang and kick the door, Guerra said. He would yell profanities at the teacher, telling her to 'Open up the f-- ---g door!’” (Emphasis added.)

Reference Link: Parkland shooter always in trouble, never expelled. Could the school system have done more? http://www.miamiherald.com/ news/local/article201216104.html

Broward County Sheriff’s Office — "Stunning Series of Failures”

• “… Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies had multiple warnings that the 19 -year-old was a violent threat and a potential school shooter, according to r e c o r d s r e l e a s e d T h u r s - day.” (Emphasis added.)

• "Nikolas Cruz’s dangerous and disturbing behavior was flagged repeatedly to authorities, both local and federal ….” (Emphasis added— Question: Anybody in government “own” this?)

Reference Link: Parkland school cop ‘never went in’ during the shooting. There were other failures, too. ( Emphasis added.) http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html

Broward Schools & Sheriff 'Cook Books' to Suppress Discipline, Arrest Records

Broward County School District and Sheriff’s Department “cooked the books” in order to lower arrest records for the student population. (Emphasis added.)

(Question: If two agencies perpetrate fraud — which leads to murder, is anybody in those agencies accountable? How bad was the fraud?)

"Broward County schools once recorded more in-school arrests than any other Florida school system,” according to The Washington Post. (Emphasis added.)

• Beginning in 2013, Broward stopped referring students to police for about a dozen infractions ranging from alcohol and drug use to bullying, harassment and assault.

Surprise! The collusion between the school district and sheriff’s department resulted in "a dramatic decline in the number of students who are arrested at school.” (Emphasis added.) 

No kidding! Do the arithmetic: school-based arrests plummeted by 63 percent from 2012 to 2016. Who says authorities don’t know how to make schools safer? Can’t fix what you don’t measure.

There’s more:

"The Obama administration held up Broward’s transformed discipline system as a national model, inviting [Superintendent Robert W.] Runcie to speak [at a White House event] about t h e d i s t r i c t ’ s a p p r o a c h i n 2015.” (Emphasis added.)

Guess where Superintendent Runcie was before Broward County:

Chicago Public Schools.

Reference Link : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ education/teachers-say-floridashooters-problems-started-in-middleschool-and-the-system-tried-to-helphim/2018/02/18/cdff7aa6-1413-11e8- 9065e55346f6de81_story.html? utm_term=.890a73ab56a0

No one held accountable. A White House, School District and Sheriff’s department that celebrate fake numbers resulting in the death of 17 students. Cheating on school violence records went on at other schools too. And we’re supposed to trust government to get it right and keep kids and us safe? Our rights should not depend on the behavior of the lawless — or the ineptitude of government authorities.

Perhaps a member of Congress could conduct an inquiry in order to design a bill that would hold government officials accountable at all levels. Let their due process be held in abeyance. Congressman John Katko (NY-24) prosecuted bad guys under RICO. This is perfect for him; and what a lesson for government. By the way, if government officials at any level screw up a NICS form. Same deal. And so on and so on. And Broward County is just one example. Wow, can you imagine. Citizens will be cheering Mr. Katko in the street as he goes after corrupt and inept government officials at all levels. About time!  

By Harold Moskowitz

Lead was once widely used in manufacturing. Today, probably the only two remaining uses are for lead-acid batteries and ammunition. For most shooters, lead exposure begins with the handling of ammunition. The next exposure is when loading the cartridges. Small particles of lead are removed in the process and make contact with the shooter’s hands. Lead can absorb through the skin.

Lead becomes airborne when a firearm is discharged. Lead fumes are vaporized from the base of the bullet. Most fumes result from the ignition of the lead-based primers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health believe that any lead blood level over five micro grams per deciliter of blood is a health concern. Dr. Mark Laidlaw of Indiana University at Indianapolis has determined that frequent users of shooting ranges can accumulate a blood lead level as high as forty micro grams per deciliter of blood. The United States Department of Labor recommends that shooters who spend time at ranges should be tested for blood levels every six months.

Lead enters the bloodstream and is distributed throughout the body. It gets collected and stored in the bones. The level of lead gradually builds up. More range time equals more lead exposure and accumulation. The nervous system is damaged first. Excessive lead can cause aggressive behavior and depression. Some shooters with high lead levels have experienced hand tremors, decreased memory function, vision problems, difficulty concentrating, and reproductive problems. The only way for keeping track of lead accumulation in the body is to have the blood level tested periodically.

Since the Progressive Liberal goal of outright destruction of the Second Amendment is still unattainable, there are two avenues available for advancing their anti-gun agenda. The first is the passage of “common sense” gun control restrictions after each new mass shooting incident. The second method will be through the guise of protection of public health and the environment. This can be done at both the state and national levels.

The information which has been presented in this article about lead is already known by the anti-gun individuals in government. Progressives want “single-payer” health care which would control and pay for medical care. In New York, Governor Cuomo wants a state-run “single payer” health system which would give Albany officials the power to control all health-related issues and treatments. At both the state and national levels, all-powerful bureaucrats would likely impose regulations focusing upon lead as an environmental and health issue. Governor Cuomo promised to release a slew of new ways to weaken firearm ownership during 2019.

How much longer will it be before both public and private club operated gun ranges are required to meet stringent air quality standards for ambient levels of lead both inside and outside a range? Anticipate ruinous penalties for each day range operators are economically unable to be in compliance. Many range operators would choose to cease operation rather than invest in the expense of the necessary technology and periodic maintenance for meeting the new air quality standards.

It is known that lead damages the nervous systems of children more easily than that of adults because their brains and bodies are still growing. Expect attempts to impose minimum distance requirements between the location of any gun range facility, whether enclosed or not, from any school, day care facility, preschool, park or playground due to ambient air “lead concerns.” Furthermore, because high blood lead levels can result in aggressive behavior and depression, it is not inconceivable that gun license renewals and hunting licenses could be denied to anyone having a blood lead level deemed to be “high” by state health administrators. Blood test results could become a new requirement for licenses and renewals.

Anti-gun politicians and their liberal billionaire campaign contributors understand that the undermining of the Second Amendment must be done incrementally, with stated motives which sound reasonable to the majority of the public. More weakening of the shooting sports and self-defense can be accomplished by regulating lead’s potential to harm health, especially that of children, than by attempting to ban it entirely.

The ammunition manufacturing industry, domestic and foreign, should be encouraged, even pressured, to shift production to lead-free bullets and primers. We as consumers should be willing and ready to support them in that effort. It will increase the cost of participating in the shooting sports. However, in the long run, by taking away the threat of anti-lead regulations aimed at driving gun ranges to close and disarming shooting sport participants, it will help to preserve and protect what is left of the Second Amendment.