frontlines

By Les Wilson, 2016

Schuyler County S.C.O.P.E. has had a busy summer attending local events and meeting candidates running for election. 

On August 5-7 Schuyler S.C.O.P.E. had a booth at the Watkins Glen Italian fest. We were joined by Millport Hunting and Fishing Club and the Odessa Community Conservation Club. Jointly, we were promoting our current fundraising efforts to assist the Schuyler County 4H Youth Shooting Sports Program. The new program has started with the archery discipline and air gun will follow shortly. The Millport Hunting and Fishing Club also joined this effort by providing their grounds as a venue for the 4H program. Some generous members of S.C.O.P.E. and the Millport Club have attended the 4H training and have become program instructors in various disciplines. 

On October I, Schuyler S.C.O.P.E. will have a booth at the Montour Falls Harvestfest. Last chance voter registration will be a theme at this event as with all events we attend. The Chapter currently has a raffle ongoing for a 16-gun safe, a reloading kit and a patriotic soft rifle case. The winners of the three prizes will be drawn at our Oct. 13 meeting. 

Democratic NY Senate candidate Leslie Danks-Burke addressed our August 11th meeting. She is challenging the incumbent, Senator Tom O'Mara, for the NY 58th Senate District. Danks-Burke stated she was pro 2nd Amendment and acknowledged that she felt the NY S.A.F.E. Act has major errors. 

The newly installed S.C.O.P.E. NY President, Tom Reynolds, also attended our August meeting, introduced himself and addressed the Chapter on current S.C.O.P.E. business. NY Senator Tom O'Mara attended our September 8th meeting. He gave a briefing on the current NY Senate makeup, proposed legislation and critical Senate races around NY State. He was very concerned that if the Republican conference loses control of the Senate that more onerous gun control bills will be passed. 

Our current A rated Assemblyman, Phil Palmesano, is running unopposed in the 132nd Assembly District. 

By Gary Zielinski 

The Ontario County Chapter of SCOPE -- we are doing our Job' too well. A question I keep asking myself, is why we don't have the response from our members that they have in the Wayne, Yates, Genesee, and Steuben County chapters? 

We have members, but, very few are active. Some people in the county see that there is a problem, but for various reasons, think that throwing $25 a year at SCOPE will solve it. Most gun owners seem to be satisfied with trying to live with whatever Albany throws at them. However, can you spot a trend? 

The last 20 years have seen a lot of "stuff' come our way. It's not going to get any better. As soon as 'little duce' thinks he can do it, more onerous regulations will be coming. How would you like getting a prescription for sleeping pills, and having the state police show up to seizeall your guns? IT'S HAPPENING NOW!! IT WILL GET WORSE!! 

Why don't we have more active members? Is it our leadership? Basically, our leadership are those who show up on a regular basis. 

This is a volunteer organization. if there is a lack of volunteers, there will be a lack of capability. So, those who at least recognize that there is a problem, have to accept more responsibility. Become more active, and get more members. Otherwise, prepare for the "knock on the door", and to hand over your guns. Anybody who says anything different is sleepwalking through life. 

By Warren Johnson

When you consider how municipalities manage property... do they have an obligation to see to it everyone has a voice? In the instance of Margaretville, New York in the Catskill Mountains, the local Chamber of Commerce hosts a Cauliflower Festival on a large public venue in a field maintained and operated by the village. This festival stems from the historical context of local farmers raising cauliflower up until about twenty years ago. 

The Catskills have also been the wilderness for many people where they could hunt and fish and generally enjoy the outdoors. The use ofguns and a society raised in that culture permeate the county.  In fact, Delaware County, NY is the only one out of 62 in NY that remains a .. "shall issue" pistol permit location. 

In a recent move to increase S.C.O.P.E.'s influence in the area, a new committee formed under the leadership of Andrea Elliot. She suggested we inquire concerning our ability to obtain a booth space (at this venue). Our intent is to address the issue of voter registration,pass out registration forms, and colIect them to deliver to the Board of Elections in time for the November polls. Many of you know of the lack of participation by gun owners in the last election where Cuomo won by some 500,000 votes. For a community like Margaretville, in a county like Delaware, it's important the gun owners retain a voice in their government. 

Mrs. Carol O'Beime, Executive Director of the Central Catskills Chamber of Commerce, turned down a request for a booth space with these words... "This is a community festival, not a forum to bring up issues that seem to have become political. People want to get away from all of that and we aim to provid (sic) a place where we can offer that. Not the time or place. It is our policy." 

I don't know the origin of the concept of not talking about religion or politics in public. I do know I've heard it for some sixty years. The policy detracts from honest discussion and continues to lead us in a downward spiral throughout our society and culture. S.C.O.P.E. is a nonpartisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. The denial of a local community group like S.C.O.P.E. to offer an opportunity to register to vote and discuss matters of public interest on a municipal piece of property, seems to fly in the face of our First Amendment rights. 

We went to the Margaretville village government. Mayor Diana Cope spoke at length with us twice. She is to be commended. However, her responsibility, with the review and approval of the village board, is to never deny anyone the right to use the property. That would be illegal. Once an organization/ individual signs the agreement indicating the expected population, general use, and agrees to pick up after themselves, the village has done its job. There is no rental cost, only a cleaning fee returned if the park is clean when one leaves. She does indicate no one can charge an entrance fee. Use of the grounds is open to everyone. If you've arranged to use the property and received permission, you can't stop someone from walking their dog. You can't stop someone from speaking about issues while standing in the middle of your event. You can't charge an admission fee (donations are an acceptable recompense). The Delaware Chapter of SCOPE may use other tactics during the Cauliflower Festival. We're still discussing those. The bottom line is not about forcing ourselves upon an organization hell-bent on keeping civilized discussion from within its territory. Our every effort needs to be aimed at engaging the public whereever we can find them, Cauliflower Festival or not. Contact information for the Central Catskills Chamber of Commerce: Mrs. Carol O'Bierne 806 Main Street, POB 605 Margaretville. NY 12455 845-586-3300 www.centralcatskills.com www.cauliflowerfestival.com

By Tom Reynolds 

Barack Obama and the left say that closing our borders is not who we are; but they won't admit that we really are a nation under attack by terrorists. The facts are obvious: the Obama administration is unable to protect America from terrorist attacks; cities with strict gun laws, like Chicago, are unable to protect their citizens from gun crime; countries, like France, which have strict gun laws are unable to protect their citizens; gun-free zones are abysmal failures; the government cannot monitor all potential threats without endangering the Constitution. 

The Obama administration is unwilling to confront the terrorism issue and defend the American people. The President even suggested climate change is to blame for terrorism. If so? Why aren't Catholics and Buddhists beheading people? Is ISIS really motivated by changing weather and a lack of jobs? 

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Disarming citizens is a program that has been tried, over and over again, and does not work. It's time to try something different. 

Admiral Yamamoto, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Terrorism has invaded our homeland. Let's have no more "soft targets" for terrorists. Let's re-arm Americans to protect Americans. 

A highly visible gun presence will be a deterrent to crime and terrorism. All Americans start with the Constitutional right to bear arms and only those that fall into narrow categories and have had a judicial hearing should be denied that right.  Concealed carry laws must be expanded. Handgun licensing should be expedited in the interest of protecting Americans; judges should not have the discretion to delay licensing because of their political beliefs. It should again be a common sight to see rifles mounted in the back window of pickup trucks. It's a program without government cost since private citizens already own guns and will be buying the guns. 

This is not a call for unlimited gun ownership but for expanded, common sense gun ownership. Silly and ineffective laws such as the SAFE Act should be repealed. Carrying a gun while intoxicated should have similar penalties to driving while intoxicated. Private property owners must retain their Constitutional right to control their property. Felons, mental patients, etc. would obviously be denied. Use of a gun in a crime should increase the penalty. 

People without respect for the lives and rights of others must learn that Americans will not be easy targets. Fourteen people died in San Bernardino even though the police arrived in less than five minutes. Terrorists must learn to expect an immediate response to their actions. Drive by shooters must understand that potential victims can shoot back. 

Why should Obama, Cuomo and legislators be protected by guns if citizens are denied that same right? 

The 2nd Amendment insures all our Constitutional rights as well as our inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

''We the People" are under attack. The Second Amendment gives the citizens the right to keep and bear arms. 

The Founding Fathers were well educated and knew the continuing evolution of weapons; the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow, the cross bow, and the musket. 

In 1776 the governing powers (British) had the musket, the citizens also had the musket. Now in 2016 with the SAFE Act, the governing powers have assault style weapons, but the citizen only have the rock. 

What kind of government would try to disarm us during this age of terrorism? 

The politicians that want to disarm us should lead by example, and disarm their heavily armed security teams that surround them - ALL Lives Matter. ''We the People!" 

By Henry S. Kramer, Tompkins County 

Like many American citizens who are not members of SCOPE, I do not own a gun nor do I want to own one. So, why am I writing this to SCOPE? Because guns are unlike any other form of property, they are specifically guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Protecting and preserving the entire Constitution itself, even if we do not agree with some of its clauses, is an important value in its own right. 

The Constitution is the glue and the cement that holds us together. Americans can be a violent people; we are certainly a litigious one. Like the rules in football, the Constitution defines for us what the rules of the game are and how we must play it. If opponents of gun rights want to change the Constitution, they should follow the amendment procedures. These procedures are difficult and were designed as such to create a high hurdle for those who may want to alter the Constitution. Gun control people are impeded by the Second Amendment, but that does not stop them from trying to pass laws, statutes, and ordinances that undermine our constitutional protections. Presidents Wilson and Obama viewed our Constitution as a set of mere guidelines but they were wrong and organizations such as SCOPE are necessary to protect the Constitution. 

While I can support some gun regulation under our Constitution, I think the Second Amendment must be honored. That is one reason why so much is at stake this November in terms of who will appoint Supreme Court justices. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. They have tightly enforced the First Amendment free speech rights hut have effectively nullified the Tenth Amendment. which leaves power to the states and the people. On the Second Amendment, they have set boundaries which seem to be flexible. That is both a good and a bad thing. It allows adjustment to the times but it also allows the Court, if so disposed, to give the Second Amendment lip service while effectively reading the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. Because the Supreme Court is the bulwark of constitutional rights, who will be the people who interpret the Constitution is a critical question. 

On one occasion, the amendment process for the Constitution has failed us, prohibition. This social experiment that was forced upon the country by a well organized, vocal, group was so unpopular with the American public that it failed, becoming the only constitutional amendment ever repealed. Strict gun control laws, even if passed, would face a similar fate. They would not be widely accepted particularly outside our big cities and statistics show that tough gun control laws simply do not work. 

Consider that you, as a citizen or legal resident of the United States are constitutionally protected to carry your property with you when you cross from New York into another state. It remains yours. That is, all your legal property, except your gun property. Although it is the one kind of property the Constitution protects, it is also the kind of property that the state you enter can regulate or even confiscate. This creates a kind of constitutional singularity for gun property. 

So, why should people who don't like guns support and value your Second Amendment rights? Because if we do not, who will be left to speak for us when they come for our First Amendment free speech rights, our rights to a free press, our right to freedom of religion? All are constitutional rights matter and if we fail to defend any of them against unconstitutional incursion we start down the road to the loss of other rights. No rights are absolute rights; some restrictions are not only inevitable but sensible. But the core Second Amendment must be preserved if other rights are to be honored. When you talk with people who don't like guns, this is perhaps what you should tell them. Whether or not they agree with you, they may then support your work in defense of our Constitution itself. 

By Budd Schroeder

The misnomer of "gun violence" keeps running through the liberal media and is voiced in the broadcast channels as buzz words to take the focus off criminals and place it on an object which, in reality, is a tool. Most tools can be used violently as weapons such as an ordinary hammer. Using it to build a house makes it a tool. Using it to crush someone's head makes it a weapon. Whether the criminal uses a gun or a hammer as a weapon the result is a dead person. 

Granted, there have been no reports of hammers being used in mass murders, but the concept remains that no tool is a weapon unless an evil person takes control of it. One of the largest number of victims of a mass murder was caused by a Molotov Cocktail in a social club in the Bronx a couple of decades ago. Close to a hundred people were killed in that crime. 

Recently, in Europe, many people were killed by an evil person driving a truck through a heavily populated section of the city. The victims were equally as dead as those who were shot in Paris. The tool is only an instrument. The violence is strictly a human caused event. There is no argument that there are too many evil people in society. No evil, no violence. Maybe, but the liberal left will argue that if we had stricter gun control laws, we would have less violence. 

Those who argue against that premise will claim that horrific violence occurred throughout history long before the invention of firearms. The Bible tells how the Kings of Israel killed people by the tens of thousands. While it could be argued that the numbers don't matter because God commanded the Kings to "slay His enemies." When it comes to a report of deaths in that way, the tellers usually shy away from using the term, "murder." 

Regardless of whether or not the killing was sanctioned by a government or was committed by a criminal, people died. There is only one degree of death. A person either is or isn't. Near death is "still alive." "Recently died" is still "totally dead." Death can come in many ways from many actions. Medical malpractice on an annual basis, by a huge margin, exceeds the death by gunfire. Deaths caused by accidents, illness and substance abuses are responsible for more deaths than gunfire. 

So, is there a solution to the problem of the "gun violence?" If there is one. it has to be focused on people, not guns. The term should be changed to "criminal misuse of firearms." That would be much more accurate and place the focus and efforts on those who misuse firearms for violent and evil purposes. 

There is a problem with trying to convince criminals not to be violent. In the first place, many murders are "crimes of passion" or "they didn't think they would be caught" and commit the crime. Some sociologists think the crime is a result of society not dealing with the problem which involves the study of family structure, poverty, or other excuses for bad behavior leading to violent actions. 

Regardless, the focus is on more "gun control" and even if it doesn't work, the liberal politicians and media try to convince the public that such things as universal background checks, banning certain guns because of their appearance or features and even banning high capacity magazines will reduce the number of homicides. They conveniently overlook the obvious problem that criminals don't obey laws. 

If bans worked, Prohibition would have successfully ended drunken fights, alcoholism, and the other social problems that involve alcohol, like drunken driving, as well as the illnesses associated with alcohol. 

Illegal drugs are banned, so we shouldn't have any problems with drug abuse, right? Try again. Drug overdoses account for far more deaths than homicides involving guns. Obviously, gun control laws don't affect criminals either. So, the answer has to be people oriented and the focus should be on discouragement for the use of guns in crime. 

Using simple math of the number of guns and gun owners in America versus the number of people misusing firearms, the misuse comes out to about one-quarter of one percent. That's a real minority of problem people who own guns. 

A thought that might be much more effective is to amend the criminal justice laws regarding violent crime. Presently, if a person commits a violent crime with a gun, the charge may be increased a degree or two regarding the length of the sentence. In other words, if a criminal robs a bank or a person the charge increases the length of the sentence. 

What would happen if that was changed to a charge that if a gun was used in a violent crime, there would be an additional five years added to the sentence for the robbery or assault? It would be one charge for the crime without the degrees presently used. No, buy one, get one free, in the sentencing. 

The second thought would be to add to the list of conditions that make a murder one charge, the crime of a drive by shooting that results in a homicide. What can require more intent than talcing a gun in a car to drive around for the purpose of killing someone? If Greg the Gunslinger does this, he will never get out of prison. That could be a real incentive to not do it. It also could give powerful leverage to the DA if he wanted a plea bargain and save the taxpayer the cost of an expensive trial. 

Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control would make more sense. 

By Tom Reynolds

Napoleon is credited with saying that he would rather fight allies than be an ally. During World War 2, General Eisenhower would probably have heartily agreed with that sentiment as he tried to balance Patton, Montgomery, Churchill and DeGaulle. During twenty nine years as a corporate executive, I saw numerous instances of this, so it should not have surprised me - but it did - to discover the conflict between SCOPE and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, two organizations sharing the same goal of protecting the Second Amendment. 

Immediately before being elected SCOPE's President in July, I was asked several times what I would do about the divisive relationship between SCOPE and NYSRPA. Privately, I was later told by one former officer that there was zero chance of reconciliation and, frankly, I believe there were those that did not want to see reconciliation. But it was evident that the majority of SCOPE' s board did want to see NYSRPA and SCOPE work together and it was evident to me that we should not be fighting each other. As I often expressed during my career about internal struggles, the enemy is not others in the same organization. SCOPE and NYSRPA should have been criticizing the Cuomos, Clintons and Obamas of the world, not each other. 

Soon after the July meeting, some SCOPE members and a NYSRPA member arranged a meeting between Tom King, the CEO of NYSRPA. and me. A few others from both organizations were also present. Contrary to what some believe, this was the very first time that Tom King and I spoke to each other. Given the history between the two organizations, the meeting was kept very confidential. It is fair to say that everyone in the room approached the meeting with caution. Not cautious optimism, but just caution. 

Over the course of several hours, we agreed that we could not change the past but it was in everyone's interest to move forward along parallel paths. (This was easy for me since I had no history in this but it took a lot of self-discipline and commitment for others who had endured the past few years.) We knew we may not be able to work together on everything but we could and should be moving along parallel paths in pursuit of our mutual goal, the defense of the Second Amendment. If the opportunity arose to work together, we would do it but we were and would continue to be two separate organizations that share a mutual goal. We would keep each other informed so that we stayed on those parallel paths and we also agreed that there might be times when we agree to disagree, but not to do it publicly. 

When I looked around the room at the beginning of the meeting, some of the body language was not encouraging and there were soon a few tough words exchanged. But by the end of the meeting, people were telling jokes and swapping stories. We agreed that Tom King and I would continue our discussions and begin to take "baby steps" together. Very importantly, we recognized that someone from our organizations would probably unilaterally break the truce and if that happened that Tom King and I would talk to each other and work things out rather than immediately blasting the other. We also agreed to keep this confidential for the time being as we had no idea where it would lead. This confidentiality became very difficult for me, as I will explain. 

Shortly after the meeting, I saw a draft of the Firing Lines which contained an article criticizing NYSRPA. My heart sank. Somehow, I had to quietly kill it without telling anyone about what had already occurred. Thankfully, Ralph Esposito, who handles Firing Lines, foresaw that the article would kill any possible future reconciliation and he pulled it. 

Then a public test occurred when an email was broadly distributed that criticized Tom King. I quickly got hold of Tom and it was obvious he was not pleased - and he had every right not be pleased. But I explained this was one rogue letter writer and not reflective of SCOPE. He graciously held off on any return fire and I viewed this as the first real test of our relationship - and it had survived. Without knowing what was happening behind the scenes, several SCOPE members publicly condemned the email which further negated any need for Tom King to respond. A real negative had a positive result. 

There were smaller issues that were quickly resolved and some quiet cooperative interactions. King and I stayed in contact, discussed issues and shared our thinking on state and national politics and ideas for the future. In late October, a group of us again met face to face and Tom King and I recently had a post-election meeting in Albany. We have been very open in our discussions and I am more than encouraged by the possibilities. 

I was most surprised that we were able to keep this effort confidential until October when Tom King spoke at a SCOPE meeting in Canandaigua; I fully expected leaks before then. When news of the Canandaigua meeting was announced, I was free for the first time to discuss the ·details of what had happened at SCOPE's October board meeting. I was pleased that the board unanimously voted to encourage our actions and to condemn any attempts to sabotage our efforts. Just before the election, SCOPE and NYSRPA issued a mutual press release about the election which probably raised some eyebrows to see it signed by Tom and me. 

SCOPE and NYSRPA continue to explore ways that the defense of the Second Amendment can be strengthened through our mutual efforts. There are some who still remember the bad old days but they are a shrinking minority. As I wrote earlier, we are two separate organizations who want to take advantage of the strengths that a united front brings to defense of the Second Amendment. The gun grabbers who were exulting in the divisions between our organizations have reason to fear what we can accomplish together. The energy formerly wasted can now be directed where it belongs. 

By Tom Reynolds

The USA Today Network article "Crime Guns Flow To NY" was based on a report of the New York attorney general. The article was an ode to greater gun control laws as it tried to convince the reader that ''New York's gun woes are the result of other states' porous laws." 

Andrew Cuomo was quoted, " ... someone can hop into a car, buy a gun just over the border and bring it back to commit a crime." Barack Obama previously said, " ... it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than to get his hands on a computer or even a book." 

As usual, the anti-gun rhetoric has little factual basis. 

Under 1968's Gun Control Act, gun-selling businesses must be Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and must obey federal and state restrictions. FFLs cannot sell firearms to prohibited persons (felons, etc.), cannot ship a firearm to a person in another state if doing so violates that state's law, cannot sell a gun to a person known to re::iide in another state, must obtain disclosures from the purchaser on a federal form and must perform a background check on the purchaser. 

Can it be the infamous "gun show loophole" that politicians are blaming? Since an FFL is subject to the same rules when making a sale at a gun show and many gun shows require private sales to follow FFL rules, there is no loophole there. Imposing "waiting period" laws on gun shows would be de-facto bans on gun shows; that, of course, is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants to achieve as an end run around the Constitution. 

In two studies of more than 200,000 prison inmates who used guns when committing their crimes, Caroline Wolf Harlow, of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, found less than 1 percent of the guns were obtained at gun shows, while almost 80 percent of their guns came from family, friends, illegal and street sources. 

As to the effectiveness of the NY Safe Act, Harlow's study showed about 12 percent of the inmates used long guns, and only some of these guns are banned by the Safe Act. 

That leaves only private sales to blame. The report and article blame Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida as the main culprits because of their weak gun laws. But Pennsylvania and North Carolina, like New York. also mandate that private handgun sales go through the same background check as FFLs. 

Barack Obama wants universal background checks and said existing background checks " ... have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun." There he goes again! Over 96 percent of these rejected people did legally get their hands on a gun because the initial denial was wrong, a false positive, primarily because of a similar name. 

Anti-gun politicians mindlessly pursue the eradication of the Second Amendment and constantly r~mind us that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." 

May 24, 2018

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

Dear SCOPE Member,

Congratulations!

Yesterday, we sent you an alert to contact GOP gubernatorial candidate Marc Molinaro, to state your opposition to Julie Killian as his running mate for Lt. Governor. Within two to three hours of posting the alert, Molinaro was on the phone to me and that's a credit to you. I have always expressed that the most important key to our success is you and yesterday we saw how true that is.

During our phone conversation, I expressed to him our opposition to Julie Killian as his Lt. Governor. He acknowledged our concerns but assured me that he continues to support the 2nd Amendment and more specifically repeal of the SAFE Act. He also assured me that Killian is in full support of his agenda, including his positions on the 2nd Amendment, and his opposition to the SAFE Act. He also said Killian would soon be making a public statement affirming her support of Molinaro on those issues.

That said, I would have preferred that Killian was replaced on the ticket and I said that to Molinaro, but unfortunately, we're not going to get that. He did though, assure me that gun owners will have a friend in the governor's mansion if he's elected. His history would support his reassurances, and of all the candidates out there he does present us the best chance to impact the SAFE Act.

Finally, Molinaro’s call yesterday is an indication of how important Molinaro thinks gun owners will be in this election. He also knows you’re paying attention. Those are important points to remember as we move towards November.

Thank you again for your support. Let’s build on our achievement and work toward success on November 6th.