frontlines

By Don Smith and Tom Reynolds 

Over the course of fourteen years, from 1775 to 1789, the US had four forms of government: a king, the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation and, finally, our Constitution. Each step was an attempt to improve on the previous one. It was a pendulum-like process but it eventually worked. 

On a lesser scale, SCOPE has been undergoing the same process. After decades of being a relatively small organization primarily in western NY, it suddenly became a genuinely statewide organization after passage of the SAFE Act in 2013. That growth led to administrative and organizational problems. New leadership was elected to deal with those problems while simultaneously charting a new long term direction that puts more grassroots emphasis on the chapters and committees. 

This new emphasis on grassroots’ actions is important because we do our best to work at that level with our locally elected officials. It is important for constituents to be in contact with their legislators on multiple occasions, especially during NY’s legislative session from January to June. SCOPE chapters in the legislator’s home district must open lines of communication which will forge positive and valuable on-going relationships between legislators and SCOPE members. Working through SCOPE will allow common people at the local level to affect the decisions of their representatives. This is a fundamental role for any “grassroots” organization. 

Our belief is that putting more emphasis on the chapters and committees will help to invigorate the membership to be more involved, raise SCOPE’s profile, increase membership and make SCOPE more effective. We are seeing signs that this is happening. Last year, we only had six candidates for At Large positions on SCOPE’s board and all were previously involved at the state level. This year we have twelve candidates and half are NOT now involved at the state level. Last year we had one person doing the review of proposed legislation while this year we have three. But there are many other non -board jobs that need doing and we need volunteers from the membership. 

Growth and development brings new challenges to be answered. When SCOPE moved from being a small regional to a large statewide organization, it did not adapt its policies and procedures for the changing organizational needs. Officers have a duty to see that members’ dues are used ethically, efficiently and effectively. By -laws and regulations must be followed and not ignored. Officers must be willing to share information openly with the board and the membership; knowledge may be power but that power cannot be hoarded by a few. 

These simple directives were not followed over the past few years and problems occurred and administrations changed. We inherited last year’s records that were either incomplete or in complete disarray, which puts an audit of last year in question. However, we are committed to having the first financial audit in SCOPE’s history by ensuring that the current year’s records will allow an audit. Members will know how their dues are being spent. We are also catching up on required government reporting that was not done in the past and is stressing both chapter and state officers. But, it must be done and once completed it will ease future chapter operations. We now have a very active Finance Committee that is putting greater emphasis on protecting SCOPE’s assets and ensuring that these issues never again arise. 

The 2A movement has been hampered by the lack of cooperation between organizations. Working together isn’t always  easy but having all the gun owners in NY motivated, locally involved and moving in the same direction will produce a force that cannot be ignored. This requires organizations to rise above old issues and recognize that they exist to defend our Constitutional Rights and that goal must neutralize differences that arise. Towards that end, one of the first efforts mutually made was to end the problems between SCOPE and NYS Rifle and Pistol Association and begin working along parallel paths. To that end, we have met success. Both SCOPE and NYSRPA have set aside past differences for the greater good of the 2nd Amendment. SCOPE looks forward to forging new relationships, even if it means overlooking past problems between organizations and individuals in order to defend the 2nd Amendment. 

SCOPE is also concerned with the protection of fundamental human rights such as due process, freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of personal property. Our Articles of Incorporation state that SCOPE is, “…dedicated to the preservation of the United State of America and the Constitution……and particularly Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.” Those opposing the 2nd Amendment are also going after other rights. We must begin to work with our natural allies in the name of protecting all Constitutional Rights. You don’t have to own a gun to be concerned about the erosion of your rights. We must work with “Rights” organizations for a return to what the Constitution originally said and not the one Sotomayer and others wish it had said. 

Ronald Reagan defined perfectly that our short term decisions should all still be moving us in our long term direction. No organization operates in a vacuum and current political forces influence our short-term decisions but we must never lose sight of our goals. Extreme anti 2nd Amendment forces like Cuomo, Obama and the mainstream media have dominated the past few years but we may now have an ally in the White House. We must capture this moment by promoting enthusiasm, raising expectations and supporting activism. 

Because of the negative political climate we endured, the primary goal of 2A defense organizations has been to counter attacks on the rights of firearms owners. SCOPE was a part of successfully lobbying for the REJECTION of bills sometimes labeled "SAFE Act 2". Some examples: Safe Storage, Microstamping, Ban of 50 Caliber firearms [including 12 gauge shotguns], Mandatory insurance coverage of $250,000 for gun owners, 18 years old to own a gun, State issued pistol permits, Registration of ALL firearms with $15 fee/gun and annual renewal with $10 fee/gun. 

While we won these battles, the enemies will return and the “War On Guns” continues. Although we have not been able to obtain a repeal of the SAFE ACT itself, we continue to remain on the offensive. 

All of us in SCOPE need to be laser focused on “what we do", “how we do it” and “what it costs in time and money” between now and the November 2018 Gubernatorial Election. There are serious issues with which your chapter and state leadership must be engaged. Distractions should not be tolerated. “Cuomo’s Gotta Go” as well as the SAFE Act.  

By Harold Moskowitz 

The New York State Constitution has a provision requiring a proposition on the ballot for authorizing a state constitutional convention. This must be done every twenty years. Some people who have heard of the possibility of a “convention” have some confusion about whether or not this is the same as the “Convention of the States” which is provided for in Article V of the United States Constitution. Article V provides a way for the states to propose new amendments for the United States Constitution rather than having them proposed by Congress. The Article V Convention of States will be addressed in a future article. 

The process of adding new amendments to the New York State Constitution would extend over a two year period of time. The proposition for authorizing the convention will appear on the November 7, 2017 general election ballot. The wording will state: “Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution and amend the same?” If approved, delegates to the convention would be elected in the November 6, 2018 general election. Three delegates would be elected from each state senatorial district as well as fifteen delegates-at-large. The convention would meet in Albany and begin its work on April 2, 2019. 

The original intent of a state constitutional convention was to provide the people with an opportunity to take appropriate action for limiting the legislature or elected state officials. However, convention delegates would not be limited as to proposed changes they would like to make to the state constitution. A proposed amendment would need at least a simple majority of fifty-one percent to pass before being submitted to the state’s voters. 

Constitutional amendments can give a government a new power as was the case of the eighteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave Congress the power to prohibit the making, selling, transporting, use, or possession of alcoholic drinks. Proposed state constitutional amendments could result in changes to powers held by the Governor and the legislature. Such new powers could affect social and labor issues including revisions to public sector employee pensions already being received by retirees. State election districts could be redrawn using a revised system that could further increase “downstate” political power. The legislature could be empowered to elevate the idea of “sanctuary cities” to that of making New York a “sanctuary state.” 

The New York State Constitution does not specifically protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although state constitutions may not undermine or deny rights protected in our U.S. Constitution, proposed amendments to our state constitution could provide state officials with the power to discourage firearm ownership through high excise taxes on firearms and ammunition much as “sin taxes” are imposed upon alcohol and tobacco products. Power could be granted to the legislature for implementation of “social engineering” programs or for the remediation of “income inequality” through programs of the type started under former President Obama. This was to be accomplished by using statistical data from each postal zip code data mined from 2010 census reports. 

After the convention feels that it has fulfilled its mission, the newly proposed amendments will appear on the general election ballot in November, 2019. Propositions might be phrased in a general and vague way. A hypothetical example might be: “Shall the legislature of the State of New York be given the ability to take a greater role in protecting the safety and well-being of the residents of the state?” As worded, who would not think this proposition worthy of a “yes” vote? 

Yet, embedded in that broad grant of power to protect the safety and well-being of state residents could be the power to enact new or expanded taxpayer funded “give away” entitlement programs for “buying” votes in future elections. Restrictions or a ban on the use of lead bullets as both an environmental and a health priority are then feasible. Special crushing taxes on gun dealers, gun shows, and any gun manufacturers still remaining in the state, due to their “adverse” effect on the safety of New York residents, would be likely. The Attorney General could feel empowered to remove current protections from firearm manufacturers, dealers, and gun show organizers for injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from unlawful, unintended use of their products. 

In an overwhelmingly liberal state where progressive liberal views predominate, giving life to an unrestricted constitutional convention would be risky at best for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.  

By Todd Strelow

After reading Tom Reynolds’ article in the last issue of Firing Lines on the upcoming vote on a NY Constitutional Convention, I figured I’d throw my two cents in. Like Tom, I’m undecided on the value to gun owners for such a convention. This is not because I don’t see a need for change, but because I fear a change for the worse. I agree with Tom that the “Divide NY Group” plan to separate Upstate and NY City isn’t going to happen. But what could happen is ending gerrymandering of political districts. 

My suggestion (and I’m sure others have thought of this as well) is that we change the way Senate and Assembly districts are structured. For the Senate, make it a Senator for each County. For Assembly districts, make the rule for establishing these that the boundaries of the district must run along established Town or County lines. No piecemeal districts that include only little portions of Towns or Counties. Why should someone have to drive to another county to visit the office of their Senator? The Assembly can remain based on population (as long as district lines run along Town/ County lines) like the U.S. House of Representatives, but the NY Senate (modeling it after the U.S. Senate) would be one Senator per County. It works on a larger scale in the Federal government, why not here in NY? 

How does this help us? For one thing, I think it would give Upstate a greater voice in the Senate. Remember, Cuomo only won the majority vote in about a quarter of the Counties (I think it was 16 out of 62) in the last election. It also takes any confusion out of what district people live in, and I think it would lead to greater accountability for our elected representatives to the people. Complex problems often have simple solutions, and I think this would be a good start. 

In the meantime it’s extremely important that we continue to register our fellow gun owners to vote. Trust me when I say there’s a lot of them who aren’t registered (I registered/re-registered 22 gun owners to vote last year in the months leading up to the election). There shouldn’t be a gun/archery store in NY that doesn’t have a stack of voter registration forms on the counter. There shouldn’t be a gun show, gun auction, sportsman show, gun/archery store customer appreciation day, or any other gathering that would tend to draw large groups of gun owners, without someone there registering new voters. If you’re at an event selling raffle tickets for your gun club, you should have a stack of voter registration forms on the table. They are available from your county board of elections, ask for a whole package of them. Constitutional Convention or not, we are stuck with the SAFE act as long as Cuomo is our Governor. If we want it to be repealed, we need to vote Cuomo out of the Governor’s office (and keep him out of the White House!!). It’s up to US to make that happen!  

By Jim Tuttle, Genesee County S.C.O.P.E. Chapter

As we have seen, the SAFE Act was established by select individuals in the dark of night. It was stated that this law was created by exigent circumstances and was quickly passed by both houses of the New York State legislature. Since that time we have learned that two of the three main architects of the law, Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver, have since been convicted of felony corruption charges. The third, Governor Andrew Como, is currently under investigation. After reading the law, we have learned that not one section deals with public safety. All the restrictions are cosmetic in nature, not, performance in nature; rendering the law useless. 

Now the Governor has finally produced his pistol permit recertification document. Why is it no surprise that more emphasis is placed upon the number and type of weapons a permit holder has, rather than whether or not the individual is qualified to have a pistol permit. The Governor has clearly established his desire to establish a confiscation list, rather than a safety net. Now, although no provisions have been clearly established for the enforcement of this law, if you don’t comply properly, you become a criminal. A person can be arrested, can have your property confiscated, can be fined and or sent to jail. 

What really gets me the most is this; we now have, at least, a Governor, Attorney General and State Senator who are all practicing attorneys. As sworn court officers, they have taken an oath to uphold the laws of New York State and uphold the Constitution of New York State and the Constitution of the United States of America. As elected officials they have taken a similar oath. In addition to supporting the SAFE Act which violates our rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, they now openly conspire to violate Federal Law by encouraging sanctuary cities, especially New York City, which ultimately will be a financial burden upon the people. Without properly investigating potential immigrant’s backgrounds, they also endanger the welfare of our families. 

Do as I Command, Not as I Do. 

Not only are these individuals violating their oaths of office, they are violating the laws that they swore to defend. Every honest citizen should be screaming at the top of their lungs for these individuals, and any others who fall into this category, be prosecuted and impeached. Notify your local, state and federal representatives. As individuals and as members of organizations, we must act now.  

By Richard Rossi, Treasurer Delaware County SCOPE

Let's all be realistic, New York State IS NOT a selfprotection friendly state. We all know that Law-abiding gun owners, especially CCW holders, are by far the most responsible, law-abiding citizens not only in New York State, but in the entire country. 

That being said, we need to be 100% alert - ALL of the time. Everything we do or say is being judged and put under a microscope as not only CCW holders, but as gun owners. The anti-Gun agenda folks are just waiting and hoping we cross the line. 

I would like to discuss my opinion on a couple of issues: Concealed Carry Vs. Open Carry, those 'cute' bumper stickers and signs that we see on our vehicles and homes, and Training. 

The Open Carry Vs. Concealed Carry is NOT an option for New York State CCW holders. I do not want to get into the RIGHT of choice. We are 'unfortunate' or 'fortunate' to be restricted to CONCEALED CARRY ONLY. I say fortunate because, I truly believe, being in NYS, Open Carry would hurt us more. Right off - when you are seen carrying, you would be constantly judged - every act you take will be magnified 110%. And unfortunately, you will be seen as a 'bad guy' in the eyes of many. 

If I had a choice, I would never carry ‘open’. My choice is a safety concern - my safety. The use of a weapon, any weapon can and does result in arrest and at times a criminal trial. It could also mean your death. Why subject yourself to added attention? 

Why subject yourself to attack, just because you are carrying a pistol. A potential criminal will see you as a 'threat', and you could be killed or injured just for having a weapon. He will see you as ‘problem' of him/her achieving his or her objective. In this day and age of terrorism and mass shooting, you will be the first target. Why address to the world that you have a weapon and put yourself in added danger? I would like to have the advantage IF an altercation arose – Concealed can give you the added advantage and a few seconds additional time to save your life or your loved ones or an innocent bystander in the event of a deadly situation. 

Moving on to those 'cute' bumper stickers and tin signs. You all know what I am talking about. "PRAYER IS THE BEST WAY TO MEET THE LORD - TRESPASSING IS FASTER" and WARNING - THERE IS NOTHING HERE WORTH DYING FOR" both with a picture of a revolver. "AMMO IS EXPENSIVE - DON'T EXPECT A WARNING SHOT!" and the list goes on and on. 

This may seem like a wonderful idea on the surface showing that you are for your Second Amendment Rights. 

In my opinion, this tinny sign could result in the difference of you being 'acquitted or convicted' of having to act in self-defense resulting in you shooting someone - if your case goes to trial or even in the preliminary review stage. It can even mean the difference of being subject to a robbery. Why broadcast to the world that you are a gun owner?? You would not place a sign on your front door that your home is a GUN FREE ZONE - would you? 

Unfortunately, in NYS you will 'NEED' to prove you acted in self-defense in fear for your life or life of your love-ones. We, unfortunately, live in a state that does not respect our Right to SelfProtection. You had no other options than to shoot. Why give some anti-gun prosecutor additional 'ammo' (pun intended) to put before a 'grand jury'. They WILL look deeply into your background, family and friends, co-workers for ANYTHING that they can use to say you are a 'trigger happy' gun owner. These cute quotes could come back and bite you. It 'might' raise doubt to your intent??? These social media 'comments' in this day and age can and might make the difference between you staying out of jail or going to prison. Gun owners and especially CCW Holders need to be and demonstrate RESPONSIBILITY in all their actions. 

My last comments concern TRAINING - especially for anyone who IS a CCW Holder. I am not only speaking about firearms training but proper safety training and basic firearms shooting skills etc.  

In a life and death encounter - these shooting skills are unique and require specific conditioning and training. You need to learn how to control the 'stress factors' of a confrontation. Your 'actions - reactions' need to be second nature. You might only have a second to respond - delay. To think about sight alignment, trigger pull, is my safety off etc. and you could be fatality injured or dead. 

These are ALL critical especially to a Concealed Carry individual. But just as important is having knowledge of the law. 

Everyone needs to take a course in "Practical Application of the Law - NY State Article 35" - Use of Force CERTIFICATION COURSE.  

Make sure that it’s a certified course by a qualified instructor. This certificate can be your 'Get Out Of Jail' card. It demonstrates that you are a responsible CCW holder and you made the effort to be a knowledgeable Law-abiding citizen to the best of your ability to fully understand your rights and responsibilities when it comes to the use of deadly force.  

Maybe one day, CCW Holders and ALL gun owners, will be innocent until proven guilty. This will ONLY happen if we all constantly keep our representatives in Albany and Washington aware that we are watching, we vote. And we will not be second-class citizens any longer. United we can make a difference.... 

By Budd Schroeder

The SAFE act is once more generating news. There is a bill in both the Senate and the Assembly to make a change, not in wording, but in geography. The bill proposes that the law is limited to New York City and those in Upstate New York are not affected by it. It is similar to the way the Sullivan Bill works on handgun possession. Two different sets of rules on gun ownership. 

From the recent news about the criminal misuse of handguns in Buffalo and the increase in homicides since the law was passed, it would indicate that it isn't working to cut deaths by criminals using guns. The answer is actually pretty simple. Criminals don't obey laws and the good people don't need to have their rights infringed. They definitely are not a problem. 

The law does nothing to keep criminals from getting guns anymore than the drug ban keeps addicts from getting heroin. However, in politics perception is reality. So, if enough people are conned into believing the law will reduce violence, the politicians without scruples will vote for it. The whole motivation is votes and reelection. In New York City the attitude regarding guns is much different than it is in upstate. 

The upstate gun owners are used to having guns for hunting and target shooting as well as believing they have the right to self-defense and wish to be able to have a viable means to do it. New York City has a contingent of politicians who try, and often succeed in convincing the voters that the government will take care of them. 

The legislative power is in the Assembly and there are enough Democrat votes Southeast of the Tappan Zee Bridge to pass any bill and to even override a veto. The power is there and naturally, that is the house with the most abuse. What the Democrats want, the Democrats get. They wanted more gun control and they got it. 

Now that there has been a long enough period to see it doesn't work, there is a huge effort to get the law repealed. That won't happen, so since politics is the art of compromise, this bill is offered. The people in New York City get a law they want and the people in upstate get rid of one they don't want. 

The SAFE law makes it impossible for the Amish to buy a gun because of the universal background check. It requires a photo ID to get the NICS background check and the Amish religion forbids photo taking. Therefore they are denied the ability to legally purchase a gun. The Amish are known to be a very law abiding, peaceable and non-violent society. We wonder why the politicians don't want them to have guns. 

Another problem with the law is based on only a report, a person can lose four Constitutional and civil rights. The big problem is that they can lose these rights without due process. A false report from a hospital or from a doctor, nurse or social worker saying that they believe the person is a danger to themselves or others. can cause the loss of Second Amendment rights. They don't need the intervention by a psychiatrist or parapsychologist and there is no hearing to challenge the report. That is a very significant problem. 

S.C.O.P.E. (Shooters Committee On Political Education) initiated a law case on this issue. It is called Montgomery v. Cuomo and has been languishing with delays caused by the state. This is an indication that they are not optimistic about winning and hope that the plaintiffs will give up. The plaintiffs are waiting for the SCOTUS to be filled soon in case the lawsuit has to go that far. 

It is simple to determine from an outside viewpoint. The fact that due process is in the Bill of Rights and also in an amendment to the Constitution should be reason enough to repeal at least that part of the bill. Nobody should be denied any rights without due process, but the State of New York believes that they should be able to override the Constitution. It would seem that the legislators who voted for the bill have the same opinion. 

 By Don Hey

On February 9th I contacted Superintendent Beach of The New York State Police with questions concerning the NY Pistol Permit Recertification process. One question I specifically addressed was the required inclusion of the Driver’s License ID number. Referred to below as “NY Client ID”. Although the recertification process was an integral part of The NY Safe Act, Article 400 of the NYS Penal Law was never modified to require this additional information. 

This was the reply I received via U.S. Mail: “The design and validation requirements of the newly created pistol permit recertification database necessitated the use of a known personal identifier. During the early development stages of the recertification database, limitations were readily recognized for each of the various personal identifiers considered. The decision to utilize the New York State client ID was ultimately selected as the best solution to successfully develop and implement solutions to the complex technology challenges of the project. "

"Moreover, and to address your concerns, recertification via the New York State Pistol Permit Recertification website cannot be completed without a NY Client ID, and certification via the paper form without the NY Client ID is currently being given consideration along with conforming instructions. "

"The New York State Office of Information Technology Service (OITS) is also working on various technological solutions to the certification process to allow certification without a NY State client ID. However OITS database engineers readily admit that changing the database requirements at this point would be a significant undertaking.” 

So, one might ask why the objection to this “required” information? Although this information is readily available to The NY State Police it is not a requirement noted in Article 400 and many feel that authority needs to be given not taken. Also there are concerns they might take the liberty of uploading this information into mobile license plate readers thus standing in violation of The People v Garcia decided December 18th 2012 prohibiting such activity. 

In May of 2015 I had the opportunity to enter into a meeting with the newly appointed Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan. During the course of this meeting pistol permit recertification was addressed. It was decided at that time that the counties would handle the recertification and the New York State Police had been given no authority to revoke a permit based on the recertification process. This was disclosed with senate counsel present in the room. So what happened? Again Governor Cuomo and The Political Appointee’s within The New York State Police have overstepped their boundaries and taken authority without getting proper authority! 

In closing I have sent a reply to Superintendent Beach asking specifically if the omission of the NY Client ID on the paper form would trigger a failure to re-certify thus resulting in revocation of ones Pistol Permit. Also note that the deadline to re-certify is January, 31st 2018. I will wait to see how this and other matters are resolved.  

By Tom Reynolds 

It’s not unusual and, in fact, it’s quite normal to hear a Republican member of the New York State Senate say that there is no chance that the SAFE Act will be repealed this year. We, in SCOPE, find such comments abhorrent. After giving away repeal of the SAFE Act, we will not be able to “tradeup” to repeal the SAFE Act. So, why do they say it? 

Could it be that the New York Assembly, which is dominated by New York City, is overwhelmingly anti-gun Democratic and Andrew Cuomo is the father of the SAFE Act? The Assembly must pass all potential laws and Cuomo must sign them and the Assembly and Cuomo are not friends of the Second Amendment. Facts are facts and those are facts. This is the first and usually only reason Senators will give to back up their statement. They want us to believe that this roadblock cannot be overcome. 

Could it be the Senators want to lower expectations about their performance? This is a yes. If we accept their statements without argument, they have successfully avoided any responsibility for another year of failure in our crusade against the SAFE Act. This type of statement is what is called a “Self-fulfilling prophecy”; if you say you can’t do it, you won’t! 

Could it be they are lousy negotiators? Given what we have seen the past few years, that would be a definite yes. They violate the first rule of negotiation; don’t give up anything before negotiations begin! And it is difficult to name any major victories for Upstate in the last few years. 

Could it be that the Republican leadership has no real interest in repealing the SAFE Act and Republicans only use it as a token campaign issue to get reelected? Here we have a resounding yes and it is the core reason for their statements. 

All the major legislative bodies in New York and at the federal level are dominated by their majority party leaders; either called Majority Leaders or Speakers. Because of the rules of these legislatures, Majority Leaders haves tremendous power and little gets done (or undone) without their approval. It is not a stretch to say that a legislator’s most important vote is for the Majority Leader, since that person sets the direction of that legislative body. He is one of the “three men in a room” who dominate NY State politics. John Flanagan, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate voted for the SAFE Act. 

While 70% of the NYS Assembly and 100% of Governor Cuomo are overwhelmingly anti-gun politicians, they are, at their heart, self-serving politicians for whom political trade-offs are the norm. The key is to make them give us something we want (repealing the SAFE Act) in return for us giving them something they need. This is done all the time by linking two unrelated bills; you vote for mine and I will vote for yours. 

Last year, gun rights advocates had the perfect issue to trade for repealing the SAFE Act; rent control laws in New York City needed to be renewed. The Assembly and Cuomo desperately needed that to happen or they would have angered their core NY City constituency. In addition, Upstate NY had no direct stake in whether or not this happened. It did happen and in return the Republicans got…nothing. 

This year, we have a similar situation with NY City needing renewal of the 421-A program, now called Affordable New York but more accurately called “Tax Breaks for NY City”. SCOPE started a campaign to link these two issues. Many Upstate Senators will not be happy about this since they hoped to pass this law without much notice. Why? Because many Upstate Senators got sizable campaign contributions from NY City developers who will be the prime recipients of those tax breaks. These Senators can still make their campaign donors happy by voting for the Affordable New York program, but get us something in return; repealing the SAFE Act. All it takes is for Majority Leader John Flanagan to stand firm, something he neglected to do last year. 

What will cause Flanagan to stand firm? It will take the Senators in his party standing up for something he has no interest in doing; remember, he voted for the SAFE Act. What will motivate the Senators to do something they have no interest in doing? It will take an energized and engaged constituency, with SCOPE members at the forefront. It will take pressure on these Senators from the Republican establishment in their constituencies. 

Last year it was Rent Control, this year it is 421-A and next year there will be other issues. While NY City has many economic engines, at its base it is dependent upon government largess. The largest employment sector in NY City is the government: federal, state and local. The NY City economy is dependent on programs like rent control and 421-A; without them there would be economic havoc. This is their weakness and Upstate’s strength, but our political leadership must begin to use it.  

By Harold Moskowitz

As was indicated in Part 1 of the last  issue, a referendum will be used on November 7, 2017 to potentially authorize revisions of the New York State Constitution. This article will explore some of the issues and motives which are in play in this high stakes political game. Although the process is supposed to be controlled by the people, that promise could well become a manipulated illusion. 

In 2008, Presidential candidate Obama successfully used “Hope” and “Change” as his slogan. Each potential voter was left to imagine that the “Hope” was what he was hoping for and the “Change” would be the change he would like to see occur. To many, the idea that a state constitutional convention could bring about the types of changes they might be hoping for is an attractive lure. 

Groups, individuals, the state government and local governments all see revision of the state constitution as a means to further their agendas. Political reformers hope for ethics reforms in a state where political corruption has gotten national exposure. Many would like to see term limits for elected officials. Elections, they say, are not a substitute for term limits considering the advantages held by incumbents for reelection. 

Others would want “Initiative” and “Recall” added to our state constitution. In the former, sufficient numbers of petition signatures of registered voters could force the legislature to take action on an issue it has been avoiding. In the latter, a sufficient number of valid petition signatures would force an elected official to step down before the end of his term of office. 

One particular group hopes to have delegates elected to the convention who would propose dividing the state into “upstate” and “downstate” autonomous districts. Each district would have the power to repeal “disadvantageous” laws previously passed by the legislature such as the SAFE Act. Self-described “fiscal conservatives” seek budget reforms, including spending limits and transparency in the budgeting process. 

They seek an end to defined benefit pension plans for public sector employees which they consider to be an unsustainable fiscal burden. Associated with this goal of reducing pension costs is a potential motive for a convention by the state and local governments to revise the clause in Article 5, Section 7 which protects public employee pensions. 

Basically, it states that public employee pensions are of a contractual nature and cannot be “diminished or impaired.” Presently, monthly retirement amounts cannot be reduced regardless of pension system investment results. Lack of this protective clause in a state’s constitution makes it increasingly tempting for governors, county executives, and mayors to under fund or not fund their employee retirement systems.

 Withheld pension fund contributions can then be diverted for budget balancing. They make exaggerated predictions of investment results to make up for the under funding of the retirement system. 

Progressive liberal agenda goals such as “social engineering” and elimination of “income inequality” related issues would likely be proposed. In particular, they would look to expand Article 17 Section 2 of the state constitution which guarantees the “aid, care and support of the needy.” This could be expanded to create new programs to remedy perceived “economic inequality” based upon economic data from the 2010 census compiled by zip code. 

New York could be declared a “sanctuary state” in which those here illegally could be guaranteed full protections, entitlements including college tuition, driver’s licenses and the right to vote. 

Second Amendment supporters would hope for the “Castle Doctrine,” concealed carry, or a “stand your ground” proposal. However, delegates must be elected and some will be currently elected politicians. 

Delegates are not penalized for misrepresenting their true views. One could reasonably count on prominent anti-Second Amendment billionaires gladly spending millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of hand-picked potential delegates who, if elected with or without misrepresentation, would propose even more stringent “common sense” gun control restrictions and measures to hasten the day when the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in New York State would be almost non-existent.

Although any proposed amendments have to be approved by the voters in November, 2019, fewer people vote in off-year elections and of those who do vote even fewer take the time to indicate their choice on propositions. 

Thus, a very small percentage of the state’s population could unleash huge impacts upon the state’s residents. Publicly, Governor Cuomo does not promote a convention but close aides have indicated his support. If he is in favor, that should give all Second Amendment supporters pause to stop before voting to give life to a constitutional convention.  

By Tom Reynolds

We hear constantly that it is important to register and vote. In New York State, if you want to vote in a Primary, you must be registered in a specific party: Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Independence, etc. You can only vote in the Primary of the party in which you are registered. For instance, Conservatives CANNOT vote in Republican Primaries; only Republicans can vote in Republican Primaries and only Democrats can vote in Democratic Primaries. 

The Independence Party is an established party, like the Republicans and Democrats. You may call yourself an “Independent” but you are NOT in the Independence Party unless you register as a member of the Independence Party. Only if registered in the Independence Party could you vote in an Independence Party Primary. (Candidates like to pick up the Independence Party endorsement as it gives them an additional line on a ballot.) 

Since many districts are heavily weighted for one party or the other, the real contest is the Primary of the party with the majority in that district. If you want a voice in these one-sided districts, you need to be registered as a member of the majority party. This is especially important if you are dissatisfied with an elected official of that majority party and would like to see him / her ousted in a Primary. 

In New York State, there is a difference between the effective date of the “voter registration” and the effective date of the “party registration”. A registration to vote in the general election takes place immediately but a “party registration” does not take place until AFTER the coming November’s 2017 election. Anyone who registers for a specific party between now and November2017 will not be able to vote in a PRIMARY this year (in 2017) but they will be able to vote in a Primary in 2018. If one registers for a specific party the day AFTER this November‘s election (November 8, 2017) they will NOT be able to vote in any 2018 primaries as they will not be eligible to vote in a primary until after the November 2018 elections. 

Elected officials in New York like this under-publicized and complicated process as it creates a cooling-off period for potential Primary voters who are dissatisfied with the incumbent. A dissatisfied person who is NOT registered in a party may get upset with an incumbent, this year, and show up to vote in the primary but will not get to vote even if they registered in that party this year. 

This lengthy period for party registration does prevent people from hopping between parties in order to influence more than one primary. 

Many New Yorkers – especially in Upstate - are dissatisfied with the political ruling class and view their only option is moving to another state. But gun owners, by themselves, could be a powerful weapon of change if they would vote. There are about 4 million gun owners in New York State and Cuomo won the last election with 2.1 million votes while Astorino had 1.5 million votes. Somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million gun owners did not vote; more than enough to change the election and change the future of Upstate New York. 

In 2018, the New York State Governorship as well as all NY Assembly and NY Senate seats will be on the ballot. If you want to vote in a primary, you need to get registered in a party, this year, before November 2017. 

You can help change history by registering for a party, voting in the primaries and general elections and by contributing to SCOPE PAC. Votes and money are the two things that politicians need. SCOPE PAC is a separate organization from SCOPE and, as such, it can spend money in support of candidates or causes while SCOPE has limits on what it can do. Candidates are already starting to surface and if SCOPE PAC is to have an impact it comes through money. Please consider a donation to SCOPE PAC. (See our ad in Firing Lines for details.)