Log in


  • 08/08/2023 8:23 AM | Anonymous

    Colorado gun law raising age to purchase gun to 21
    set to take effect Monday

    A Colorado gun reform law that will prohibit people under 21 years old from purchasing a gun will go into effect on Monday.

    SB23-169, one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in the spring, will prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing a gun, with exceptions for active members of the U.S. armed forces, peace officers and people certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training board.

    Local gun shops and shooting ranges say the new law might lower profit, but they are more worried about the people who will be unable to protect themselves.

    "People under the age of 21 are no longer going to have the right to defend themselves with firearms," DCF Guns store manager Kevin Day told Fox 21. "The best thing we can do is continue to educate the public."


    Some gun groups, including the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, have filed lawsuits against Democrat Gov. Jared Polis and the State of Colorado in an attempt to strike down the new law, The organization filed a Temporary Restraining Order to potentially prevent the law from going into effect, arguing that it is unconstitutional.

    RMGO said if people are allowed to vote when they are 18, they should be allowed to purchase a gun.

    "You can be drafted into the military. You can go and die for your country, but you can’t own a gun. That’s just wrong," RMGO Executive Director Taylor Rhodes told Fox 21.

    State sponsors of the legislation said it is meant to protect young people, not to criminalize responsible gun owners.


    SB23-169 is one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in the spring. 

    "This isn't trying to infringe on anybody’s rights … What it comes down to is saving lives, we know that youth suicide has increased," Majority House Leader Monica Duran, Majority House Leader told the outlet. "We know domestic violence has increased."

    Duran, a Democrat, said limiting access to guns is a way to improve public safety.

    "The easier it is to access something, the more likelihood that it can be used in a way that could be detrimental to not just our youth but our community," she said.

  • 07/24/2023 9:07 AM | Anonymous

    The sorta-secret world of New York's high school trap shooting clubs  bCam Edwards | 4:30 PM on July 22, 2023

    The sorta-secret world of New York's high school trap shooting clubsBernardo De Niz

    We’ve written before about the trap shooting’s explosive growth in popularity in states like Minnesota, where it’s the fastest growing high school sport, but I confess that I had no idea it was so popular in the anti-gun state of New York until I ran across a letter to the editor in the Rome Sentinel. Bohdan Rabarsky, the chairman of Oneida/Herkimer chapter of SCOPE, wrote to the paper with a very good question: why hasn’t the New York State Public High School Athletic Association recognized trap shooting as an official sport?

    Rabarsky explains that, lacking that designation, high schools that want to put together teams have to operate them as clubs, not official athletic programs. And despite the state’s attempt to shut the shooting sports out of official recognition, the number of clubs and participants are growing by leaps and bounds.

    This is a sport that’s not only the fastest-growing sport in New York State, but the safest sport, as there’s never been a recorded injury since its inception 10 years ago.

    Participants are required to take a gun safety course, be certified and wear safety glasses and eye protection.

    Shotguns are kept in locked cases or at gun clubs and only loaded when it’s time to fire at a clay target.

    Teams are made up of boys or girls, or can be co-ed, with boys and girls competing on the same team.

    Students with disabilities are encouraged to participate, as speed and strength are not required for membership to a shooting club.

    In June, the Bridgeport Rod & Gun Club held the New York State championship where more than 1,500 students participated.

    1,500 kids isn’t quite Minnesota territory, where about 8,000 student-athletes compete in the state trap shooting championship, but that’s still a lot more than I would have expected. Honestly, I never even thought about any high school-sponsored shooting sports programs in New York because I figured the state would have put the kibosh on that long ago. Let’s hope that no anti-gunner stumbled across Rabarsky’s report or we may soon see legislation to that effect in Albany.

    Rabarsky says that most of the clubs are in rural high schools, which may have trouble fielding football, baseball, or even basketball teams, and that trap shooting “fills a void” that would otherwise be left unmet. I’m willing to bet that there’d be interest from students in larger high schools as well, however. One of the great things about the shooting sports is that there’s generally room for everyone, at least at the high school level, so you don’t have to worry about riding the bench or never getting a chance to actually participate outside of practice. If you’re on the team then you’re competing, which simply isn’t the case with most high school athletic programs.

    That’s not the only benefit. As Radarsky points out, trap shooting is incredibly safe, and teaches kids how to be safe and responsible with firearms. Do we want kids learning about guns from video games and social media, or do we want them to get instruction on real gun safety in a safe and controlled environment? The abstinence-based approach mandated by gun control activists isn’t working out that great, so why not try something that’s both educational and fun instead?

    I think it’s the last part that’s a deal-breaker for the anti-gunners, who have targeted youth shooting sports from California to Massachusetts in recent years. The gun control groups make no bones about wanting fewer gun owners, and one way to do that is to discourage any and all reasons for owning one, from self-defense to the shooting sports. Many of those 1,500 kids who took part in the New York State Championship may go on to own guns as adults, for any number of reasons that are entirely unacceptable to the Shannon Watts’ of the world, who view the shooting sports a gateway drug to gun ownership.

    Any attempt to gain official recognition for New York’s high school trap teams is likely to hit a brick wall of bureaucracy, but if the effort inspired other high schools to at least adopt trap shooting clubs it might be worth the effort… at least if it didn’t result in the state’s anti-gun legislative majority banning the clubs from operating as well.

  • 07/11/2023 9:34 AM | Anonymous

    Advocates: Next SCOTUS gun rights decision will clarify N.Y. laws

    PUBLISHED 7:11 PM ET JUL. 10, 2023

    Advocates on both sides of the gun rights debate are preparing for the next battle in interpreting Second Amendment rights and its potential impact on state laws.

    Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall to decide if a 1994 federal statute prohibiting anyone actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from having firearms is constitutional. It comes after a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel threw out the conviction of Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who was convicted of possessing firearms while under such a restraining order.

    Judges cited last year's Supreme Court ruling and decided though Rahimi discharged his weapon in public five times in two months while subject to the order, it did not invalidate his constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The court argued no similar laws in U.S. history confiscated guns from people who were violent against their spouse or partner.

    "If you were married to a man and he abused you, you had every right to beat your wife, as long as you didn't leave permanent marks," said SUNY Cortland political science professor Robert Spitzer. "That was the legal standard 200 years ago."

    Spitzer has written five books on gun control and is an expert on national gun policy; he's skeptical the Supreme Court will completely strike down the nearly 30-year-old federal statute.

    "I think the country could not tolerate such a decision," he added. "I think the court would have a hard time coming up with five votes on behalf of that decision."

    Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, colonies and U.S. states had laws where a person found hunting in the wrong place at the wrong time could have their firearms taken away, Spitzer said.

    "So would that provide a valid historical analogue to modern domestic violence laws? To me, the answer would clearly be yes," he said.

    Spitzer added he'll be surprised if the court upholds the domestic violence law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with the modernized national view of abuse — pointing to several studies linking more violent domestic abuse outcomes to gun ownership.

    Abusers with access to firearms are five times more likely to kill their partners, according to a control study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

    About 4.5 million American women alive today, or 1 in 27, have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun, according to an article in the National Library of Medicine.

    "Time and time again, evidence shows that when a domestic abuser has access to a gun, the likelihood that their intimate partner will end up being shot and killed is extremely high," said Rebecca Fischer, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "However, the courts are, you know, wondering whether or not they can actually take that evidence into account."

    Advocates like Fischer who fight for stricter gun control laws in the state say the highest court's decision will be pivotal in future analysis of gun laws across the nation. Last year, the Supreme Court overhauled a long-standing New York law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and ruled Americans have the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. State lawmakers returned days later to strengthen New York's Red Flag Laws, which allow police to seize firearms of someone who is posing a danger to themselves or other people.

    Lawmakers last June also swiftly updated the state's concealed carry law limiting the public places where guns could be taken, and stricter requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit.

    "The decision will not only have implications for individuals who are threatened by intimate partners and have suffered from domestic abuse, but it also could have implications on how courts analyze gun laws and whether or not gun laws across the country are still considered constitutional under the Second Amendment," Fischer said.

    SCOTUS' next gun rights decision, not expected until late spring 2024, will likely reinvigorate challenges to the state's emboldended Red Flag Law. A federal lawsuit is pending against the updated concealed carry law.

    Advocates fighting to protect Second Amendment rights, like state Rifle & Pistol Association Executive Director Tom King, say the stricter law can lead to the confiscation of a person's firearms without legal due process.

    "Your firearms are taken away without ever having gone to a judge — there's no search warrants, no nothing," King said Monday. "They come in, and they take your firearms. It's no different than if somebody came in and they said, 'We heard you were speeding,' and they come in and take your car away. I mean, where does it end?"

    King is hopeful about the Supreme Court's review of the 1994 federal domestic violence statute, arguing the current rule is too broad. He says each person's case should be reviewed separately instead of the way the federal domestic violence law paints every person with the same brush.

    "I think that each case has to be looked at individually," he said. "And I think that's what the Supreme Court is doing right now."

    Advocates on both sides of the discussion agree on a single point: The Supreme Court's decision will help clarify last year's gun rights ruling, and define the new standards for judges across the nation when deciding on legal challenges to existing firearm restrictions.

    "This new decision will provide some clarity on how to analyze gun laws that, right now, courts are all over the map in terms of how to interpret Bruen," Fischer said. "...If they find a law, if they utilize a law that is comparable to the federal laws that qualifies is historical and fits within the new framework of analysis, then that will give courts going forward more guidance on what type of historical laws should be applied to uphold gun laws in the future."

    King is confident law-abiding gun owners in the state will be ready to comply with the court's final decision — regardless of the outcome.

    "They are the highest court in the land," he said. "Whatever decision the Supreme Court makes, I will live with and I'm sure the gun owners will live with, unlike Gov. Kathy Hochul, who couldn't live with the Bruen decision."

    Lawmakers passed a series of bills before the end of session groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence pushed hard for, including to expand the state's victims' compensation law, the Grieving Families Act and a measure to increase Medicaid reimbursement for violence prevention programs.

    Hochul has until the end of the year to decide to sign them into law. She has not shared her position on the legislation or if she intends to sign the measures, Fischer said.

  • 07/06/2023 8:50 AM | Anonymous

    Violent Career Criminal Breaks Into His Last Home, Runs Into Armed Mama Bear Who Doesn’t Hesitate to Protect Her Children

    By Warner Todd Huston, The Western Journal
    A mother protecting her children in Louisiana is a recent example of the type of “good guy with a gun” story that liberals truly hate because it proves that guns save lives.

    A convicted felon who had just perpetrated another string of violent crimes chose the wrong house to invade and the wrong woman to attack in Hammond, Louisiana, earlier this year when he met a mother who was determined to protect her children, WVUE-TV reported.

    The Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office was called to a home on Klein Road in Hammond, but when they got to the residence, the action was already over.

    The officers discovered the body of Robert Rheams, 51, just after 5 a.m. on a Sunday morning in January, after he tried to break into the home where a woman resided with her two young children.

    The brave mother told the officers that Rheams broke in while the family was sleeping. According to WVUE, the convict was wearing a ski mask and was armed with a shovel and a lug wrench.

    The woman added that Rheams confronted her and threatened to harm her with his weapons. But the woman had other ideas. She pulled out her firearm to defend her family and gave Rheams a reason to suspect he had broken into the wrong house.

    The criminal was pronounced dead at the scene by the parish coroner.

    Officers also said that the home invasion seemed to be a random act and that the attacker and the homeowner had had no prior contact.

    After investigating the incident, the police discovered that Rheams was in the midst of a crime spree that was abruptly ended by the woman protecting the lives and safety of her children.

    Officers traced Rheams’ activity back to an earlier carjacking only blocks from the woman’s home.

    According to the owner of the car, Rheams carjacked the driver at a local motel.

    “During the drive, he started striking the driver with his fist and the driver ran into a ditch, causing the car to become stuck,” said Tangipahoa Chief Deputy Jimmy Travis. “The driver was able to exit the car and flee to safety.”

    Rheams is also the suspect in a robbery several hours before all this that occurred at a deli on Saturday night, according to the report.

    Travis added that the woman would not be charged for killing Rheams because she was merely exercising her Second Amendment rights to protect herself and her children from a violent home invader.

  • 05/24/2023 9:20 AM | Anonymous

    Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

    At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

    Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

    Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.”    ............

  • 05/04/2023 7:30 PM | Anonymous

    Newsmax:  Watchdog: IRS Spent $10M on Weapons, Ammo Since 2020  by: Luca Cacciatore  Tuesday, May 2, 2023

    The Internal Revenue Service has invested $10 million on weapons, ammunition, and combat gear over the last few years as Republicans warn of a militarized tax agency.

    Published last week, OpenTheBooks found that the IRS spent $2.3 million on ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $474,000 on rifles, $463,000 on shotguns, and $243,000 on body armor vests since 2020.

    Another $467,000 were spent on duty tactical lighting, $354,000 on gear bags, and $1.3 million on "various other gear for criminal investigation agents" over that same period.

    The spending spree comes despite the IRS appearing to be well-stocked before it, with the agency spending $35.2 million adjusted for inflation since 2006 on guns, ammo, and military-style equipment, the watchdog determined.

    Republicans have frequently slammed the Biden administration for empowering the IRS, which received more than $80 billion in new funding as part of the $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act signed last year.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California led his new Republican majority in January to vote to rescind over $70 billion of that new funding. However, the legislation has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

    "Do you make $75,000 or less? Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you — with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k," McCarthy warned on Twitter in August.

    According to the New York Post, the IRS has defended its requirement that agents carry military-style weapons because of their consistent involvement in organized crime, drug, and gang investigations.

    The Treasury Department has also claimed the IRS requires 86,852 new employees over the next decade, which conservatives like McCarthy believe will be used to target everyday Americans.

    © 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  • 05/01/2023 11:32 AM | Anonymous

    Federal Judge Halts State’s New ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban, Cites Likely Second Amendment Violation

  • 04/06/2023 11:10 AM | Anonymous

    The Footnote to End All Gun Control  by John Crump|Apr. 3rd, 2023   According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
    SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.

    GOA Files New Case Against New York's CCIA, iStock-697763642

    The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

    This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.  With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

    Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

    Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

    Footnote 11 reads: “The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

    Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

    About John Crump

    John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software