frontlines

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. 

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

Much has been made of what many think the Founding Fathers had in their minds when the Second Amendment was initially drafted. If one delves deeper into the history of this right, it will be discovered that individual right of possession of firearms for the further right of self-defense, even from our own government, is much older than our own Constitution. For example, under Alfred the Great (beginning AD 872), all English citizens from nobility to peasants were required to privately obtain weapons and be available for military service although this obviously predated the general availability of firearms. Moreover, in English common law, during the 12th and 13th centuries, requirements were made upon 'freemen' and later this included serfs, to possess arms privately to serve within the military when called upon to do so.

During the 17th century, while this country was being explored, similar requirements were made upon the citizens of various colonies. Virginia colonists, for example, were forbade to travel unless they were well armed, they were required to bring their firearms to church on Sundays and participate afterward in target practice. Later in that same century, homeowners were required by the local government to purchase a firearm and have it within the household. If a person could substantiate they could not afford a firearm within the residence, the government would purchase one for them with the understanding that the government would be reimbursed at such time the resident could afford to do so. Massachusetts even went so far in 1644 to not only order freemen and indentured servants to own firearms, but also provided a fine to such citizens found not to be in possession.

As the days and years proceeded toward our Revolutionary War, local newspapers used arguments such as being British citizens (even in the colonies) they were entitled to the same rights as citizens in Britain under their Bill of Rights (not to be confused with ours created later in our Constitution). One even quoted from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England which had listed the 'having and using arms for self-preservation and defense' among the 'absolute right at common law to own firearms."1

Numerous debates took place following the Revolutionary War prior to adopting the Constitution regarding militia proposals. All called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee was one of the Founding Fathers who argued against a formal militia in his "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican". He said in that document that "it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." George Mason of Virginia who assisted in drafting the Virginia Bill of Rights argued that the British 'plotted to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to enslave them'. Patrick Henry was known to remark that 'The great object is that every man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.' Numerous other examples and sources can be identified routinely.

James Madison was originally assigned the task of drafting our Second Amendment when Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights. To accomplish this, he drew upon a pamphlet listing several state proposals for such and attempted to create a brief version of the collection. One of his first drafts was as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."1 The version we are familiar with today as the final product "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was approved by the house and submitted to the Senate, which approved it the next day. It is pointed out that eliminated during the Senate debate was an amendment which the Senate felt inappropriately focused on firearm possession being limited to keeping and bearing arms to bearing 'for the common defense'. It is quite evident that by rejecting this amendment, the Senate felt 'common defense' should not be the only factor in guaranteeing arms possession by the private citizen. Note too there was no phrase in this document that pertains to hunting game.

Numerous commentators during our initial history following the war and the work done by Congress toward this aspect, remarked particularly concerning prohibiting any attempt by Congress in disarming the people. As an example, William Rawle's 'View of the Constitution' published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment, "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."1

Finally, the point is made in the listed sources that several state constitution drafters also included the language of possession of firearms as an 'individual right' in their works. Thereby enforcing the idea yet again that the protections provided under the Second Amendment were intended for individual citizens, not specifically militias. Further, the argument was made that numerous states were providing similar clauses in their state constitutions. If the states, too, were incorporating this issue in their versions that it was felt by state legislators at that time to be a right that could be infringed at either federal or state level and that this right must be protected against infringement by both seems quite apparent.

These arguments supported the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Enjoy the talking points in your next discussion with a liberal who is in favor of banning guns.

1. W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution (National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1991)

2. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982)  

Larry Cowden, Schoharie County

A new piece of gun control legislation is now working its’ way through the legislature that on the face promises to reduce gun violence. Legislation Act 2857-A introduced by Sen. Parker will force all firearm owners to purchase a $1 million insurance policy. But will it and what are the hidden costs to New Yorkers and should the state pass this?

Only the law-abiding citizens will follow or attempt to follow the rules of this law. The criminal elements of society will not. New York needs gun owners to support the state programs boasted of as being the reason to come to New York to enjoy the state’s fishing, hunting, wildlife, and support local businesses.

As reported by democratandchronicle.com, dated March 21, 2018, New York hunters and anglers are responsible for generating more than $28 million in funding for state conservation and outdoor projects, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced Tuesday.

New York was awarded $28,682,525 in the annual funding to state wildlife agencies from revenue generated by the historic Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration acts, $20.8 million in wildlife restoration funds and another $7.8 million in sport fish restoration funds.

New York hunters contributed $41,780,328.00 dollars in hunting license fees to the state budget for funding wildlife and preservation programs as specified by the Pittman-Roberts act. New York will gain an additional $971,461,000.00 in revenues from hunters not including sales taxes for that year. Many hunters in state, will spend more. Out of state hunters could be expected to spend  three times that on transportation and lodging coming from other states. Will they have to have a $1 million insurance policy? If so, they won’t come, losing more revenue.

The non-hunting shooters easily exceed 2.5 million shooters spending an additional $500.00 each year. That brings in another $1.3 billion to the state economy, and with hunting revenues we are talking about $2.5 billion in funds generated for the state and business owners Hunting, fishing and trapping license sales (1.5 million per year) generate approximately $47 million dollars per year deposited into the Conservation Fund. Those funds leverage millions more in federal aid as a direct result of the license sale revenue. This doesn't even include the estimated $2 billion generated to the state economy on a yearly basis by residents and visitors coming to New York to hunt, fish and trap.

Because of this the invasive species program eliminating and preventing the spread of 18 invasive species that threaten marine and terrestrial ecology, and humans could end. All state, and national recreational areas will suffer. The loss of these funds to the state wildlife programs and business owners will be catastrophic and dangerous.

Time and again, the democrats, liberals, and Governor Cuomo rush to pass what they call the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. No consideration is given to those hurt most are the law-abiding citizens, gun owners, or the financial impact on state programs and business owners.

Last year he threatened any businesses that deal with the NRA reputational ruin. As reported in the Washington Times last year: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’s discovered a way to kneecap the NRA by outlawing its gun-liability insurance program and is urging other states to follow his lead, saying they have a chance to exploit the gun-rights group’s admitted dire financial situation.

“I believe this insurance product is going to be illegal from a public policy point of view in most states,” Mr. Cuomo said on MSNBC. “Now that the NRA has said this is a major source of revenue, I’m going to pursue it nationwide.”

The liability insurance, Carry Guard, covers damages and court costs associated with defending against civil or criminal accusations of misuse of a firearm.

But under pressure from New York, which warned of “reputational risks” of doing business with the NRA, some insurers have backed away from underwriting the program.

My own research of major insurance companies such as GEICO and Allstate in NY discovered there are no insurance policies available meeting the requirements of the proposed legislation. How convenient. Governor Cuomo knowingly eliminated the major organization offering the insurance coverage required and by threats forced other companies in this state to refuse to provide such coverage. This assured Gov. Cuomo no law abiding gun owners will find insurance.

Every future purchase of a firearm in the state will be subjected to a new 10 day waiting period, proof of insurance, and a 3-year media background search. The controlling powers in Albany will look for every and any reason to deny a firearm purchase or permit renewal without restraint. This will drive fire arm owners to purchase out of state for ammunition, firearms and accessories. Citizens and businesses will move out of state. Can’t blame the weather as Governor Cuomo claims. New York’s official state motto is Excelsior, often translated as “ever upward”, but if Governor Andrew Cuomo had his way, he’s prefer it to say “ever liberal”. He recently told conservative Republicans – specifically anyone who is pro-traditional marriage, pro-life or pro-guns – they “have no place in the state of New York“. More lost revenue for state wildlife and businesses.

That defines his hatred for all gun owners, the 2A and the NRA regardless of cost to the state, businesses or citizens.

“It’s not about ending “gun violence”. This is about Gov. Cuomo’s agenda to end all gun ownership in New York. Disarm the public, control the media, and you will control the citizens! Our rights to firearms, hunting, protection of our lives, our family and home will be terminated!

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

Routinely when gun banners roll out their many attacks on the Second Amendment, they attempt to allay our concerns, by telling us they’re pro-Second Amendment, and they have no intention on negatively impacting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Amazingly they do this with a straight face and then proceed to undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens to the delight of the criminal class. This deception is an unintended acknowledgment that they understand the Second Amendment is a right that most Americans believe in and support.

Make no mistake though, gun control is intended to disarm law-abiding citizens with the goal of a Utopian society without guns. Governor Cuomo has boasted on numerous occasions that New York has the nation’s toughest gun laws and it’s difficult to disagree with him. However, how do those laws impact criminals, law-abiding citizens and ultimately crime? For example, registration schemes, renewable licenses, bans on guns, magazines or other firearm components, only impact law-abiding citizens and have little to no impact on criminals. I can guarantee you would be hard pressed to find a criminal who’s concerned with the New York State Sullivan Act or the SAFE Act. Most street crime is tied to the drug trade and committed by gangs and thugs who possess firearms illegally. Criminals don’t have pistol licenses, so how does a renewable license reduce crime?

There’s a long list, but two of the most ridiculous examples of gun control that puts the public at greater risk are magazine bans and gun free zones. Take magazine restrictions that mandate how many rounds you can carry in a magazine. Can anyone, especially the governor find me a thug who is going to obey that law? Of course not. All this law does is place the law-abiding citizen at a tactical disadvantage. The same goes for gun free zones. If you know someone out there who supports laws like these please ask them to explain how these laws will keep us safer. Gun control is government negligence in action. We have a government in Albany that is legislating on the side of the criminal.

This brings us to a question for lawmakers and the governor. Given that violent crime is at an all-time low, and we already have the toughest gun laws in the nation, why are the governor and his allies in the legislature telling us we need more? The answer isn’t really about gun control — gun control is the means to “people control.” It’s been clear the Democrat party is going hard left and is clearly becoming an extremist left wing socialist party. This is not the Democrat party of our fathers and grandfathers.

Imagine a Democrat saying this today, “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” This quote isn’t from some Second Amendment activist or organization, it’s from Democrat Hubert Humphrey, his party’s 1968 presidential nominee. Oh, how things have changed.

New York State Senator from Brooklyn, Kevin Parker, has proposed legislation that would require gun owners forfeit several of their constitutional rights, for as he would put it the privilege to possess a firearm. Senator Parker wants you to surrender your social media passwords and review your online history and to determine your fitness to purchase or possess a firearm. Ironically, Senator Parker has an extensive history of violent criminal conduct, including attacks on women, adding to his rap sheet Senator Parker recently told a Republican female staffer to "kill herself."

It’s striking the quality of individuals we have representing us in Albany and it’s ironic that someone with such a violent history wants to regulate our Second Amendment rights. Since Senator Parker thinks law-abiding New Yorkers should give up their rights to privacy, free speech, and due process to exercise their Second Amendment rights, we would like to know if the Senator possesses any rifles, shotguns or firearms and if he thinks he's entitled to possess any rifles, shotguns or firearms, given his criminal history? What say you, Senator Parker? As a public servant, who is willing to strip us of our constitutional rights you owe us an answer to these questions. Call and ask Senator Parker if he will answer these questions, 518-455- 2580, email, parker@nysenate.gov.

Given Senator Parker's criminal history and his propensity for violence is he even suitable to hold public office? That is a question to ask Senator Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, her contact information is 518-455-2585, email: scousins@nysenate.gov.

Finally, one last thought, when it comes to the quality of our representation in Albany. The Republican party also has its share of shameful incompetence. Despite most of the Senate Republican conference coming from upstate, the Senate Republicans elected Long Island Senator John Flanagan as their minority leader. Flanagan who voted for the SAFE Act led Republicans as majority leader to their disastrous defeat last November. Another interesting fact regarding Flanagan, following his election as minority leader he entered for the second time an alcohol substance abuse program. We wish Senator Flanagan the best regarding his treatment, but one must question the wisdom and judgment of the GOP senators who supported his election as minority leader.

Another issue facing the GOP is the future of state party Chairman Ed Cox. The only thing the GOP has consistently accomplished since he became chairman in 2009 is to lose elections. If the GOP is ever going to be relevant again it must begin with showing the likes of Cox and Flanagan the door. One way to make this happen is for gun owners who happen to be Republican to get involved in their party. If you haven’t already, contact your GOP headquarters find out when they have their meetings and get involved.  

By Budd Schroeder

There will be changes in government because of the change of political power. We should know by now that politics is all about power and money and those with the most power and money get to call the shots on what will happen on the national and local scenes. In Washington, DC the Congress went to the Democrats, but the Republicans managed to increase their majority in the Senate.

Many think this arrangement will cause confusion and more internal battles that will involve getting or maintaining power. It will be difficult to get legislation passed and there will be more distractions, especially in the house. It is almost certain that what President Trump will be mangled by the Democrat majority. The citizens will be the ones to pay the price for the dissension.

The Democrats in the house have already stated or at least, hinted what their agenda will be. The prime directive is to distract from any legislation Trump wants. There will be the cries from the Waters’ group for impeachment. What the charges will be have not been invented yet. The fact that after two years of Mueller’s attempts to charge the president with collusion involving Russia, and coming up with nothing, that investigation will continue to be on the agenda.

The liberal leftists have made significant inroads into the process and since positions are traditionally based on seniority, the committee chairmanships will go to people like Maxine Waters and Gerald Nadler for key positions. Knowledgeable people are skeptical about the results that will come based on their past performances and reputation.

Ideology is going to be tested as well. From the direction the left has taken during the past two years, it is probable that there will be attacks on the Constitution. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that weakening the rights stated in the Second Amendment is high on her hit list. It is obvious that the liberal left is determined to strip rights from the citizens and increase the power of the government.

The Founding Fathers placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms high on their list of important rights. Only the freedom of speech, press, right of religion, and to peaceably petition the government were placed before the right to be armed. They stated that the right to own a gun was not to hunt or even for self-defense, but as protection against a government that became a threat against a republic. Since the Civil War, politicians and bureaucrats have been infringing on that right.

It is difficult to find another constitutional right that requires governmental permission to enjoy. From the time of the Jim Crow Laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, to laws requiring permits to carry them, the power brokers keep passing laws that infringe on the right in spite of what the Second Amendment says. Requiring a permit to have and bear arms has turned a right into a privilege. This is not what the Founding Fathers said. Of course, power seeking politicians don’t care what the Constitution says.

Then, there is the hypocritical issue of the First Amendment right of free speech. The liberals speak of their support of free speech, but think nothing of banning conservative guest speakers in the liberal colleges. Some college students held violent riots to prevent conservative ideas from being spoken in THEIR college halls. This is becoming more ingrained in the educational process, some being evident in public schools.

Even words have to be “politically correct” if a person wants to avoid problems. Saying the politically incorrect word can cause a person to lose a job or be denigrated publicly. Books have been taken of shelves because they had parts or words that could hurt someone’s feelings. Words have great power and using certain ones or making statements could cause a law suit if said in the wrong way or environment. The term “racist” has become a weapon in the mouths of the liberals.

What would happen if those who are conservative or on the right insisted that it is a denigrating word that is hurtful and would have to be referred to as the “r” word? Of course with the liberal media and educational institutions that would be unacceptable because it doesn’t offend them. Calling a person a racist is one of their best weapons.

The states take part of these methods to advance their agenda and New York and California are high on the list of the liberal states with more joining the blue tide. However, to a logical mind they are hardly a standard for rational living. California is high on the list of a haven for illegal immigrants and homeless people and it is getting worse. New York just became a totally blue state with the Assembly and Senate run by Democrats.

The major problem is geography. The power is all in New York City and the voting shows it. The upstate counties are much more conservative and invariably the counties with a high percentage of people getting public assistance vote Democrat. It is obvious that upstate New York will be run by the whims of the New York City politicians. They now have to power to do that. Some are saying that corruption will increase along with taxes and a loss of freedoms.

Governor Cuomo will no longer have to sneak in his pet projects with “a message of necessity” to dominate the state. He will be able to have the power of a dictator and push his agenda whenever and wherever he wishes. This will be a very tough year for conservatives and others who value freedom. 

By Harold Moskowitz

You are relaxing at home. Two men are kicking in the kitchen door at the rear of the house. What can you legally do to protect yourself? You own a “legal” firearm. Should you consider using lethal force to protect yourself? The answers to those questions will largely be determined by the laws of your state even though the Second Amendment provides the right to use firearms for self-defense.

Our laws governing self-defense are based upon English common law. In the 1600’s, English common law viewed a man’s home to be his “castle” which might need to be defended. However, every life had value. Before using lethal force, a man had a “duty to retreat” from the threat of physical harm if possible. Thus, English common law resulted in the “Castle Doctrine” for protection within one’s home along with the goal of trying to prevent the loss of human life.

The Castle Doctrine gives the legal right to defend one’s home against an intruder while allowing a defense of justifiable homicide. The homeowner is not required to retreat before using lethal force. In the 1980’s, some states expanded the doctrine to cover physical threats to occupants of a car, workplace, or place of business without a “duty to retreat.”

The Castle Doctrine may not be used as defense against a charge of murder or manslaughter if the defender was engaged in an unlawful activity at the time of the homicide. Likewise, lethal force can only be justified if the intruder entered the premises for the purpose of committing a felony. The intruder must not have been invited into the home for any reason. A defender who initiated or provoked the situation which resulted in the homicide may not use the Castle Doctrine as a defense. In addition, lethal force is not justifiable if the physical threat is diminishing. The idea of justifiable homicide is based on the premise that the killing of a person did not involve “malice” or “criminal intent.”

At least twenty-four states allow for justifiable homicide in the face of an imminent physical threat without a duty to retreat. New York requires a full duty to retreat before a person may use lethal force in home self-defense. Some New York prosecutors might possibly want to have recorded proof of a call to 911 on which you can be heard warning the intruder through a locked or barricaded door that you were armed and prepared to use lethal force if he persisted. A person might even be expected to flee from the premises to retreat from the threat. In fact, New York law prohibits the use of deadly force if it is known “with certainty” that an intruder can be avoided by retreating.

California allows the use of lethal force only for protection of the home’s occupants from physical danger. Prevention of theft of personal property is not covered. Other jurisdictions with limited or no Castle Doctrine self-defense protections include: Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Eastern seaboard states with very restricted ability to use lethal force include: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Not surprisingly, many of these states also have very restrictive gun control laws.

Florida and Texas have very strong Castle Doctrine plus “standyour-ground” protections. The latter form of protection provides the right to self-defense in any location where a person has a legal right to be. Other states with strong self-defense protections include: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.

Texas allows lethal force for protection in homes, cars, places of employment, or business locations whenever an intruder has unlawfully entered, or is attempting to enter by using force. It also allows such force for protection when an intruder is attempting to remove someone from the protected areas by force or is attempting to commit a crime such as rape. No attempt to retreat is required. Texas as well as a few other states protect citizens against civil lawsuits arising from force used for defense of themselves and others in protected locations. Florida also has strong self-defense protections. In addition, unlike other states, in Florida the “dwelling” where self-defense has ended in homicide does not even need to have a roof. It can be movable and can be as temporary as a tent.

It is advisable to periodically check with lawyers licensed in the states where you own property. State laws can change at any time. Be informed before you need to pull the trigger!