frontlines

By Tom Reynolds 

When I was SCOPE President, members would occasionally ask me if SCOPE was working on or endorsing a particular anti-SAFE Act proposal. I usually responded something like, “What is the plan to get the bill passed by the NYS Assembly which is overwhelmingly Democratic and then signed by Cuomo”? (The NYS Assembly has about 108 of 150 members who are Democrats and about 75 of the 108 are from the NY City area. Cuomo is the father of the Safe Act. That’s not very fertile ground for building an anti-Safe Act coalition, since Democrats have made gun control a major pillar of their party’s platform). I asked, why should SCOPE waste time and money on something that has no chance of becoming law? 

To repeal the Safe Act – or to get any anti-progressive bill passed – the bill must be coupled with something that the NY City Democrats must have. Two years ago it was NY City Rent Control and last year it was renewal of the 421-A program as Affordable New York. In both instances the Senate Republicans, who sometimes claim to be pro-gun, waffled and refused to force any coupling of proposed bills. They got nothing done for us and nothing substantial for anywhere outside of NY City. 

Since NY City always has its hand out, in this coming year (2018) it will be seeking the $1 billion that Cuomo promised it for the city’s subway system. It is especially important for Cuomo to fulfill this promise as he will be running for reelection in 2018 and needs to secure his base, which is overwhelmingly in NY City. Opportunity for 2A success abounds! But will the Senate Republicans fail us again? Probably - unless we do something different. 

Putting effective pressure on politicians requires either MONEY or VOTES. Let’s look at some voter statistics as to why 2A defenders have not been successful in our anti-SAFE Act efforts. The answer is in the numbers. 

New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) is a major political force in NYS. It has 600,000members and many are not teachers. The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) is another major political force in NYS. It has about 300,000 members. Combined, they have 900,000 members and it is not too extreme to say that they among the major political forces in NY State. It is estimated there are between 4 and 6 MILLION gun owners in NYS. Half of that lowest estimate would be 1 MILLION MORE VOTES THAT THESE OTHER TWO POLITICAL GIANTS! But gun owners won’t vote. 

New York City has 4.997 million registered voters but only 1.035 million voted in 2014. Again, compare that to the estimates of 4 to 6 million gun owners in NYS. If half of the lowest number of estimated gun owners would vote that would be 1 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN NY CITY cast! The higher estimate of gun owners is more than the total registered voters in NY City. But gun owners won’t vote. 

In the last election, Cuomo won with about 2.1 million votes out of less than 4 million that were cast. You do the comparison this time. 

We hear gun owners say that their vote won’t make any difference. Actually, it’s their non-vote that makes the difference. 

I recently spoke with the aide to a state legislator and I said something about gun owners not voting. He replied with frustration, “We know”! What he did not add was the obvious follow up that gun owners are not a force to be reckoned with in New York since they don’t vote. 

I realize that all of the above groups, including gun owners, won’t vote the same. But people do vote their personal interests. The potential voting numbers of gun owners is too great to ignore. 

While we would like to see gun owners join SCOPE or other 2A organizations. In reality, most people who join 2A organizations are not active in them. But if they only voted, that would dramatically change the political environment in NY State. 

The other major factor in politics is money. As individuals, very few if any of us have enough money to make a difference. But, again, the numbers are easy to calculate. If only 1 million gun owners joined a 2A organization, that would make $25 to $30 million in dues available to defend the 2A. Those are numbers that spur politicians to action. 

It’s a two-step process: first register and then vote. We need to couple with other 2A organizations and make voter registrations the number one priority. Then, on Election Day, we need to ensure that they vote. Those that say their vote will not make a difference simply are wrong. 

I said in an earlier article that it is important to register in a political party before this November’s election in order to be able to participate in party primaries. I don’t enjoy voting for the lesser of two evils and primaries give us the chance to really make our voices heard. 

The opportunity is there. The numbers are there. We have the time if we get started. 

By Richard Rossi, Delaware County SCOPE

This is an overview of the process in the NYS Senate; a similar process is also followed in the NYS Assembly. 

Getting your legislator to either draft or co-sponsor a bill is the first critical step in the process. However, once a bill is referred to the committee - the hard part begins. Committees have tremendous power in this process and a few individuals on the committee can mean the 'death' of a bill - by NOT moving it to the floor for discussion/vote. Based on the committee make-up (Dem or Rep.), could mean its 'death'. It can be 'stalled' in the committee and never see the 'light of day' on the floor. 

This is where you must make your wishes known - loud and clear. You need to flood the appropriate committee chairman and members with your phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that this is put on the docket and passed along to the 'floor' for debate and a vote. What gives these 'few' individuals the 'right and power' to prevent our democratic process? Please carefully read step 3. 

Unfortunately, the Committee's and especially their Chairman have 'the power'. This is why it is critical to have Term Limits or at least some limit on the chairmanship of these various committees' and their membership. 

Career politicians, with their personal and political biased agendas, in these important roles CAN BE the down-fall of our democratic process and we have seen this happen time and time again with the REPEAL of the NYS SAFE Act - as one example. I hope this overview sheds some insight into how Albany works. 

How a bill becomes a law 

The job of the Senate is to work with the Assembly and the Governor to enact, amend or repeal statutes which make up the body of laws by which we are governed. This involves drafting, discussing and approving bills and resolutions. The text shows the process in a simplified progression from "Idea" to "Law." At any step in the process, citizens can make their views known to NY State Senators through this platform. 

Step 1: Someone has a new policy idea The legislative process begins with a new policy idea. 

Senators often come up with those ideas. However they come from many other places such as a senator's constituents, an organization calling for a new law, or a State official. Regard-less of the source, this idea serves as the starting point for any new bill or law. 

Step 2: Idea is drafted into a Bill

 Once an idea for a new law has been settled on, it must be drafted as a bill before it can be considered by the Senate.  A bill is a set of instructions for changing the language of the laws of New York. Bill drafting requires a specialized legal training, and it is usually carried out by the staff of New York State's Legislative Bill Drafting Commission. Sometimes, an interest group may have its own attorneys draft a bill, and lawyers working in state agencies and the executive branch often submit their ideas for legislation in bill form. 

Step 3: Bill undergoes committee process 

Introduction 

The first step in the committee process is to introduce a bill into a committee. Bills are generally only introduced only by legislators or by standing committees of the Senate and Assembly. The only exception is the Executive Budget, which is submitted directly by the Governor. On introduction in the Senate, a bill goes to the Introduction and Revision Office, given a number, and sent to the appropriate standing committee. Committee Action.

Members of Standing Committees evaluate bills and decide whether to "report" them (send them) to the Senate floor for a final decision by the full membership. A committee agenda is issued each week listing the bills and issues each Senate committee will handle the following week. 

Committees often hold public hearings on bills to gather the widest possible range of opinion. Citizens can share their opinion on a proposed bill with their Senate representative for relay to the committee members. 

The committee system acts as a funnel through which the large number of bills introduced each session must pass before they can be considered. The system also acts as a sieve to sift out undesirable or unworkable ideas. 

After consideration, the committee may report the bill to the full Senate for consideration, it may amend the bill, or it may reject it. 

Step 4: Senate and Assembly Pass Bill 

After explanation, discussion or debate, a vote is taken. If a majority of the Senators approves, the bill is sent to the Assembly. It is referred to a committee for discussion, and if approved there, it goes to the full membership for a vote. 

If the bill is approved in the Assembly without amendment, it goes on to the Governor. However, if it is changed, it is returned to the Senate for concurrence in the amendments. 

(The reverse procedure is followed if the Assembly first passes a bill identical to a Senate measure or if the Senate amends an Assembly bill.) 

Step 5: Bill is signed by Governor 

While the Legislature is in session, the Governor has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto bills passed by both houses. Signed bills become law; vetoed bills do not. However, the Governor's failure to sign or veto a bill within the 10 -day period means that it becomes law automatically. Vetoed bills are returned to the house that first passed them, together with a statement of the reason for their disapproval. A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the members of each house vote to override the Governor's veto. 

If a bill is sent to the Governor when the Legislature is out of session, the rules are a bit different. At such times, the Governor has 30 days in which to make a decision, and failure to act ("pocket veto") has the same effect as a veto. 

https://www.nysenate.gov/ how-bill-becomes-law 

By Budd Schroeder

The SAFE Act is still a topic of discussion, especially now that Chris Collins is sponsoring the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA, HR 3576) which, if passed, would negate several of the most objectionable provisions of the law. 

People may want to discuss the SAFE Act, and it is up to members like us to educate them on the uselessness of the law when it comes to diminishing “gun violence.” The discussion starts at the beginning of how it was passed, literally in the middle of the night with no three day waiting period for adequate debate or input. 

Governor Cuomo and corrupt politicians (Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos) pushed it through the Assembly and Senate. The two legislative leaders were convicted and sentenced for corruption on other matters, Silver’s conviction was overturned and he may face another trial, but neither is serving their sentences. The point is that the origin of the law was passed in a dishonorable way by dishonorable people. 

It was called a “message of necessity” although some of the provisions didn't go into effect for a year, and others are not in effect now. What it did was focus on ways for the state to deny honest gun owners four constitutional and civil rights without due process. Governor Cuomo and his toadies thought, and still think, that is necessary. 

It banned many semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. It started out banning any rifle or shotgun that had a magazine that could hold more than seven rounds. It was so badly written that it didn't exempt law enforcement officers from that provision. Needless to say, that was quickly corrected and also because of the uproar that many handguns came with ten round magazines, ten round magazines became the limit for civilians. 

Then some of the idiots in the legislature decided that it would be legal to have ten round magazines, but the owner could load only seven rounds in it. A couple of people were arrested for that, but a federal judge negated that provision. However, it is only in that judge’s district that it is positively legal. It could be illegal to have more than seven rounds in a magazine in the other parts of the state. Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law?” 

Nothing has been litigated on that aspect so far. Perhaps there are prosecutors smart enough to realize that bringing stupid cases to a trial can make them look stupid. Ridicule is not something politicians and bureaucrats like. 

The law also says any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine would be illegal if it had a “military” look, having such features as a collapsible or folding stock or one with a thumb hole in it. It also banned guns with a bayonet lug or a threaded barrel. All of the banned features are cosmetic. When debating a politician or anti-gun dimwit it is a good idea to ask them how those features makes the gun “more deadly.” 

Their answers could usually be met with laughter from the audience which again, can cause the anti-gunners to be ridiculed. However, the politicians told people who owned these types of guns that they could be made legal if the gun was registered. Obviously, if the bureaucrats know you have the gun that makes it “less deadly.” 

Add some more ridiculous provisions of the SAFE Act. It still has the provision that the state can make people have a background check when they buy ammunition. This has not been put into effect yet because the State Police don't have the equipment to run the state equivalent of the NICS check. "Stupid is as stupid does," said Forrest Gump. This whole law serves as a good example of that saying. 

Then, the law requires a background check for any private sale or transfer of all guns. So, if Joe up in the North country wants to legally sell his Winchester 94 to his close friend and the nearest FFL dealer is forty miles away, they have to drive the eighty miles, pay ten bucks for the NICS check (if the dealer will do it) before the sale is legal. There are rumors that in some places guns are exchanged with cash and a handshake without going through the legal process. 

The question hasn't come up and been publicized about how do you prove a bill of sale dated before 2013 wasn't involved in a gun purchase? That could be problematic in some jurisdictions. 

The other problem with that law is it prevents the Amish from legally buying a gun. In order to perform a NICS check, the FFL dealer needs a photo ID. The Amish, by their religion, don't have photo IDs so they cannot get the background check. That is also a good question to use in the debate or discussion. “Why do you think the Amish are such a dangerous society that they shouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm? 

Getting a stupid look from the person who has to think of a logical reason for that is worth the time and effort to ask. As you keep asking and interjecting these questions for which there is no logical answer, you are making the opponent crumble. How does he defend the indefensible? 

Now, you are getting warmed up and finding the chinks in the SAFE Act defender’s armor. You have shown the stupidity of the law on the cosmetic restrictions of the guns. You always have the undeniable truth that THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES ANY WEAPON DANGEROUS IS THE PERSON HOLDING IT. 

A hammer can be used to build a house. What do you call that? The obvious answer is that it is a tool. What do you call the same hammer if it is used to smash a person’s skull? The obvious answer to that is “a weapon.” Again undeniable logic! 

This is the “weapon” you should use in the debate or discussion. Truthful statements that can't be refuted or rebuffed are winners. So, in desperation, your opponent may counter with, “The background check will make it more difficult to buy a gun.” And the answer to that is the degree of difficulty is not a factor. 

Many drugs are totally illegal and there is no place to buy them legally. The addicts don't seem to have a big problem getting their supply. The same thing is true for firearms. If there is a buyer for a product, you will soon find a seller. That is a law of commerce. 

The anti-gun debater might come up with “most guns involved in crimes come from out of state.” The answer could be. “Most illegal drugs come from out of the country.” State or federal borders don't stop criminal commerce. 

Another argument comes up on the subject of limited capacity magazines. The opponent might say “If it wasn't for the high capacity magazines you wouldn't have mass murders.” Then you discuss the ease and speed of changing magazines to reload. 

Let them think a moment about this thought. The atrocity caused at Sandy Hook by Adam Lanza is a good example of that fallacy. He could have committed all those murders with an old fashioned double barrel shotgun. He was murdering little children. Who could stop him from reloading? Again the danger comes from the criminal not the weapon. 

Another point comes from a mass murderer in Virginia. He murdered many carrying a bunch of seven round magazines. The mass murderers are cowards. They select places to commit their murders where they don't have much, if any, opposition. How many mass murders have been committed at gun clubs? The vast majority of the mass murders were committed in “gun free zones.” 

You can bring up a response by relating to drunk driving deaths and that more than half of the homicides involve drugs or alcohol. Drugs are illegal, but if we use the “logic” of the SAFE Act in this vein, we can argue that they also are inert until a person uses them. 

So, if we make the purchase of alcohol more difficult, that will cut down on drunk drivers. Prohibition was one of the greatest failures in our history. Difficult to get alcohol? The people who wanted to drink were not significantly inconvenienced. Criminals made fortunes during the Roaring Twenties. Finally, the stupid law was repealed , as the SAFE Act should be. 

Using this analogy, maybe we could reduce drunk driving and alcohol abuse if the bottles were smaller. How about a law that would forbid any alcoholic beverage to be in anything larger than a pint bottle? How about limiting alcoholic beverages to no more than 20 percent alcohol content? Limiting magazine capacity makes as much sense. 

Speaking about the analogy using cars, try this one. There is no place in NY where a person can legally go faster than 65 MPH. Therefore to make our roadways safer, wouldn't it make sense to pass a law to make all cars sold in this state have a governor on it that would not allow the car to go faster than the legal limit? 

Speed kills and how many lives could this save? The only reason a person could want to have an automobile that can exceed the speed limit, is because he WANTS to exceed the speed limit. 

Andrew Cuomo grinned as he declared that “Nobody needs 20 rounds to kill a deer.” Well, nobody needs a car that will go faster than 65 MPH. Of course police and emergency vehicles (and probably the governor’s car would be exempt). 

Of course, being New York and the fact that fines for speeding is a good source of revenue for governments makes it acceptable in Albany to have these dangerous cars on the road. (A bit of sarcasm here) .

The biggest problem for honest gun owners is that they can lose four constitutional and civil rights without due process. No lawabiding gun owner wants criminals or mentally impaired people to possess firearms. Felons are forbidden to have guns. However, the issue of mental impairment is causing a big problem. 

People who have been falsely reported by a hospital or certain people in the medical or social services for “being a danger to themselves or others” can cause the loss of the right to keep and bear arms. There is the case of Montgomery v. Cuomo still sitting on a judges desk because he won't bring it to trial. Whatever happened to “justice delayed is justice denied?” 

The case involves a retired law enforcement officer who was having a problem with insomnia and went to a hospital for treatment. He was released and a couple of days later the police came to his door and confiscated his guns and pistol permit. 

Others are part of this action. One is a woman who voluntarily went to a hospital because of a medication problem. She was falsely reported as an involuntary admission. Same thing happened to her. Some people (not a part of this case) lost the four constitutional and civil rights because of the medication they were taking. 

All got notices of the confiscation and the removal of gun ownership and their guns. There was no  hearing and we found out that the government is exempt from HIPAA laws. They can do what they choose to do. 

So far, the woman involved in the Montgomery Case had her permit reinstated because of the involvement of a good lawyer and investment of money. But, there is a big glitch for the possession of her guns. Being charged is enough for the state to notify the FBI and she, and the others now can't pass a NICS check. There is no easy way to get the stain of the report off the list. 

So why cannot those who are falsely accused possess firearms? The state has no interest in rectifying their mistake. They refuse to rectify their mistake. They refuse to contact the FBI to get the names of the wrongly accused persons removed from the list. Where is the justice here? 

The other abomination is when a pistol permit is suspended and the handguns are confiscated the owner’s long guns are confiscated too. When the pistol permit is reinstated the police have to return the handguns, but not the long guns. 

In order to get the rifles and shotguns returned, a Supreme Court Judge has to be served with an Article 78 to return the confiscated property. The filing fee is close to $400 and the average lawyer’s fee is more than a thousand dollars. The legal costs may be more than the gun is worth and not be in the budget of many people who are affected. Perhaps this is another ploy to deny gun ownership. The power to tax is the power to destroy. So are expensive processes to regain constitutional rights. 

So, if you are debating, arguing or writing letters about the SAFE Act, this article may give you some good talking points to prove that New York has corrupt politicians running Albany and the laws are strictly to limit the Second Amendment rights for honest citizens. It is up to us to convince the corrupt politicians that the law is a dismal failure and does nothing to reduce “gun violence” because CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS. 

Go forth and preach the gospel of logic and reason.  

By Don Hey

From time to time when things seem to get blurred and confusing it is important to step back and review why we are here and what are our goals. The latter is very clear. To stop any and all forms of infringement on The Second Amendment. Why we are here is a little more difficult and can be answered a bit differently in one’s mind. It is for this reason SCOPE as an organization has a mission statement. It is constructed in a manner to offer guidelines as to how we operate. There have been those as of late that have chosen to isolate themselves within a small segment of our political arena. To vilify those that do not emulate the perfect conservative and shun support from those that may have different views on issues not related to The 2nd Amendment. SCOPE has always been a bipartisan organization and this philosophy has served us well through the years. I offer below, for your review, the official SCOPE Mission Statement as listed on our website. SCOPE Mission Statement: The Shooter’s Committee on Political Education was founded in 1965 by a group of firearms owners in Western New York. SCOPE is a civil rights organization focused on the protection and preservation of the right of firearms ownership as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The founding of SCOPE and its subsequent growth were in response to the attacks on the Second Amendment as being outmoded in modern times or not being applicable to the rights of individuals. In other words, firearms ownership, much less use, was no longer considered by some to be politically correct. 

While SCOPE’s role is focused primarily on the political process, it is an issues oriented organization. It does not align itself with any political party nor does it endorse any candidates for elective office. Our function is to counter assaults on the right of firearms ownership. This entails providing legislators and executives with timely and accurate information to support sound decisions. 

In a free society, it is inevitable that the needs of the public will come into conflict with the rights of the individual. The SCOPE legislative team reviews all proposed firearms legislation for its impact on the legitimate firearms owner, its economic cost to the state, and its potential for achieving its stated objective. In developing our position on a specific piece of legislation or regulatory proposal, SCOPE goes through an extensive review process. All proposals are examined in light of their relationship to legitimate state interests and their potential for achieving objectives substantially related to satisfying those interests. 

SCOPE’s purpose is to maintain the right of individuals to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. The Supreme Court in its landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller clearly upheld this right. We do recognize that we live in a real world where individual rights may conflict and the state has a legitimate interest in resolving those conflicts. Any regulation by the state, however, must serve an important governmental objective and must be closely related to the achievement of that objective. SCOPE will oppose, with all its resources, any proposal that is not based on sound technical grounds or that infringes on the rights of firearms owners for the purpose of promoting a political philosophy, advancing a social theory, or as an emotional response and is not based on clear Constitutional grounds. 

SCOPE’s mission has always been to keep legislators informed and educated on pending and proposed bills affecting gun owners and sportsmen. We have been successful for 40 plus years. And for 40 years SCOPE has been educating the voting public on the importance of their involvement and vote. In 2013 the efforts and successes of 40 years of advocacy for gun owners all changed in the dead of night with a midnight vote. SCOPE will not stop and is now expanding to litigation efforts as well as education of our legislators and voters.

By Tim Andrews, SCOPE President

On July 29, 2017, SCOPE joined Congressman Chris Collins at press conferences in Buffalo and Rochester, to announce that he has introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) H.R. 3576. SAGA would repeal the portion of the unSAFE Act pertaining to semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The unSAFE Act broadens the definition of what an assault weapon is under New York law, and introduces gun confiscation to New York State. 

The unSAFE Act is groundbreaking in the sense that it brings us something that most gun grabbers told us they would never do, confiscate your rifles and shotguns. I guess confiscation is their new idea of a “sensible gun safety” law. If you own one of these firearms you are required under the Act to register it with the state police. You cannot transfer the firearm to any New York resident, with the exception of an FFL dealer. This includes, your spouse and your children. You have a favorite rifle or shotgun, maybe a sentimental piece, you would like to leave to your son or daughter, Andy Cuomo says NO! 

SAGA would repeal this egregious section of the unSAFE Act. For SAGA to pass we need all on board, you, me and of course congress. I am very disappointed to report that as of this writing, New York Congressmen John Faso (202) 225-5614, and John Katko (202) 225-3701, both who have claimed to oppose the unSAFE Act, have not signed on as cosponsors of SAGA H.R. 3576. Please call them and urge them to cosponsor SAGA, they need to hear your voice. 

There is good news, New York Congresswomen Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney and Congressman Tom Reed have joined Congressman Chris Collins as cosponsors of SAGA. Please let these leaders know you are grateful for their support. SAGA is also picking up support from congressman from California and Pennsylvania. One more thing we need from you, if you have friends and family living in other states, tell them about SAGA, ask them to contact their friends and families in their states and to contact their congressional representatives to support SAGA. We’re creating our own little pyramid scheme, you are our greatest ambassadors keep spreading the word. 

Finally, this November’s elections are local, you’ll be electing town boards, mayors, city councils and many other locally elected officials. These local elections, referred to as off year elections, are often viewed erroneously by many, as not important, voter participation is often the lowest of any election cycle. For us who are advocates for the Second Amendment, this presents a great opportunity, during low turnout elections your vote becomes magnified, it carries more weight and can turn an election, so register and vote. Gun owners have a terrible history when it comes to voting, many of us complain a lot, but for whatever reason, many don’t vote, that must change. Let me be blunt, the gun owners who stay home and don’t vote and support pro-gun candidates are as responsible for the passage of the unSAFE Act as anyone. 

One more point on local elections, many of those local candidates will one day be running for state assembly, senate and congress, your local elections are the best place to weed out the good from the bad now, so register, vote and ask others to do the same. Someone much wiser than me once said, you get the government you deserve.  

By Attilio A. Contini

The Country is in the midst of the most serious National crisis we have faced since the Civil War. I seriously wonder if we are going to be able to recover from it. The Civil War was primarily a single issue problem; State's Rights rooted in the issue of slavery. The problem we have today is a multi faceted dilemma with more ugly heads than I can count. It goes to the core of the Republic and is threatening the very values of our Free Constitutional Government. 

We are under attack from many different angles. But there is one common thread thru the conspiracies. A small elitist class that wants to subjugate and completely control the masses. They seem to believe we are unable or not capable of providing for ourselves, know what our best interest is, or govern ourselves. They believe someone must make all decisions for us from the cradle to the grave. For almost a hundred years now they have been brainwashing us to believe that our form of government is bad and that government (the elitists) must run our lives and provide for our every need. 

We continually here that Democrats and Republicans must and should work together to fix the problems which they themselves created. It is time we realize Democrats and Republicans working together especially in Washington is no longer a doable, smart, or possible thing. Both Parties have become obsolete. Because of the mass mis-education, brainwashing, and indoctrination of the vast majority of the American people for the last two generations very few people actually know much about our Constitution and the true responsibility of government. 

The enemies of our Country have completely infiltrated and control the Democrat Party. Let's face it today the National Democrat Party in principle is somewhere between Communist and Socialist. Many of the inside Washington establishment Republicans also advocate some form of Socialism. They use and abuse our Free Democratic system of government to control and destroy our Freedom. 

This is why the Republican Senate is unable to Repeal and Replace Obama care and they will not be able to pass true Tax Reform Legislation either. Let's be honest. 

The bottom line is approximately thirty four Republican Senators are RINOs who are playing a sinister game of CYA rather than to help President Trump clean out their Swamp. The bottom line is Washington is infested with all kinds of corrupt, self serving, lying, criminal elements, who advocate various forms of TREASON. Trump didn't say it, but I am not afraid to! 

It seems the only thing they ever do is screw the American people, destroy our economy and society, and use our legal system to create hate and discontent between every group they can think of. 

Think about it. It was an absolute disgrace that Obama was even allowed to run for President let alone become President. After four years of total disaster he was renominated and elected for a second term? That doesn't say much for the segment of our population who voted! Fifty years ago he would have been lucky to get even ten percent of the vote. 

What happened the last fifty years? Actually the Socialist/Communist movement started about a hundred years ago. They started by infiltrating our educational system starting in our colleges and working down to kindergarten. They did their homework and evolved our educational system into institutions of indoctrination, brainwashing, and miss education. 

My wife and I saw it coming back in the early seventies when we were forced to pull our oldest daughter out of the local public school when she was in the second grade. Remember in the late sixties when thinking people began to say “Keep a good child from going bad, don't send them to college”? Today it has reached the point where every child in the public school system is at risk of being lost. 

The Progressive Liberal Democrat Party has become so radical that is more of a threat to the security, safety, well being, and future of our Country and our way of life than Communist Russia is! To add insult to injury the Republican SWAMP dwellers in Washington and Albany are not that much better. 

The bottom line is the Democrat vs. Republican smoke screen is not the problem. The body politic has degenerated to the point where it has become primarily a Good vs. Evil, Pro Constitutional vs. Anti American, Law and order vs. civil disobedience, Those that give vs those who take situation. Political correctness has labeled the so called conservative, law abiding, high moral standards people with all kinds of belittling, degrading, language. The fact is the progressive liberal left advocate, practice, and are the very thing they accuse us of being. Upside down society is the best way to describe the situation! 

We are on the verge of a civil war and we better wake up to this reality. We elected Donald Trump President last November. The Left refuses to accept his election and are using the system from within to sabotage, destroy, and stop everything Trump tries to do. They have already shown they are ready and willing to use violence and political mutiny to hound Trump out of office 

There is a proposition on the ballot for a Constitutional Convention in New York. Mark my words. It will be controlled so they will be able to diminish our Rights. Unless things change, next year Cuomo will be re-elected paving the way for the eventual confiscation of our guns. 

Are we going to sit idly by and let them take our Country away from us? Only time will tell!  

by Richard Rossi, Delaware County

I am writing this on Election Day - eve. As Americans, we were able to go to the polls TODAY. We survived another year. Millions of American citizens exercised their right and privilege today. I hope you were one of these individuals. 

I would like to briefly speak about "SITUATIONAL AWARNESS" and "PROFILING". The Webster's dictionary defines SITUATIONAL as "combination of circumstances at a given moment". AWARNESS is defined as "having knowledge or cognizance, vigilance". PROFILING is defined as "a representation of an object, person etc." 

When you actually think about both these terms: Situational Awareness and Profiling, they are very similar. As an individual, you are arriving at an opinion based on your personal life experiences and the 'gut feeling' that comes over you based on current circumstances. We all have a natural instinct to self-preservation... 

Our government preaches to all citizens in this day and age - "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING"; however, on the other hand - they condemn profiling. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. 

This  seems to be the mentality of many of our elected and appointed government officials. In the name of 'political correctness', they condemn individuals and groups for opinions based on 'life experiences and the situation at hand'. 

This is being applied at all levels of our government; our immigration policies to our local police patrolling efforts. Then when situations happen, they are at a loss and can't see how this happened WITHOUT anyone being previously aware. This is the result of our dysfunctional politicians. 

Unfortunately, just as an individual needs to use all his resources available (situational awareness) as he or she goes through their daily activities, our government needs to do the same. 

Yes, it is a balance; an individual cannot be in a heightened (Condition RED) alert level 100% of the time. It is a balance of various degrees, as the surroundings dictate. One goes through various levels - GREEN, YELLOW and RED. However, one cannot be totally unaware - condition WHITE - all the time, day in day out - that will definitely result in disaster. 

Looking at the 'GUN CONTROL' waive that has hit our country in light of the recent Las Vegas shooting and the past mass shooting all across this country over the past couple of years, plays right into this mentality. However, exactly what they are condemning they are condoning. - Profiling of Law Abiding gun owners, as criminals. I assume when you have preconceived biases and agenda's, nothing will prevent you from 'saying anything', to achieve your goals. 

In New York State alone, we have anywhere from 3 to 5 million law abiding gun owners. Percentage wise, law abiding gun owner are more responsible individuals that the common citizen. CCW holders nationally are more responsible and commit less crime than our LEO's. Nationally, we have some 20,000 gun laws, regulations and statutes on the books. 

Ironically, where do a large percentage of the mass shootings happen? - in Gun-Free Zones. 

Even more ironic is the concept that banning a firearm WILL result in less crime. Criminals do not obey laws - that is why they are criminals. What rational reasoning is being used here - an 'OBJECT' is committing a crime. Only an individual can commit a crime. With reasoning like that, I would say our elected officials are completely lacking any situational awareness. They are living in 'Condition WHITE' - totally unaware of reality. However, even more ironic and disturbing, is when it comes to 'other activities' they (the Govt. officials) shift the blame to the individual rather than the object - THE VEHICLE. Take drunk driving, they rationally blame the driver, the same goes for speeding. 

Based on their faulty logic as it is applied to FIREARMS, one would presume that they would want to make laws to impact the vehicle. We have the technology to prevent everyone from driving impaired. Every vehicle can be fitted with an engine ignition system that would prevent anyone from starting a vehicle IF they have a high level of blood alcohol - correct? 

Furthermore, we also have technology to have all vehicles equipped with 'speed governors' to prevent speeding. We even have vehicles now equipped with 'crash-avoidance' technology to prevent crashes. For years, some trucking corporations have governors on their semitrailer trucks. 

Where is the out-cry from the politicians and the media. If it saves one life it is worth it, is the cry from the antigun establishment. However, let me perfectly clear, I am NOT saying these measures are appropriate. We live in a Republic and our citizens have rights as defined in our Constitution/Bill of Rights. With FREEDOM comes compromises - you can't have it both ways. 

We have seen that the latest terrorist weapon is trucks. Again “situational awareness” - CONDITION "WHITE". Our politicians and our national media have 'selective amnesia' when it comes to certain things or should I say an AGENDA. 

It would be refreshing if our elected representatives would work together with an open mind. Focus their efforts on solving our problems that face the nation, by addressing the 'root causes' and taking action NOT based on political agendas or personal gain. As has been said, POWER CORRUPTS - at all levels. This is true in government as well as our corporate world. 

We are a nation of political agendas and personal biases. Unfortunately, 'We The People' need to get our heads out of the sand. We need to take back our country, one elected office at a time. If we sit back, our Rights and Freedoms will be lost forever. 

2018 will be a big year for New Yorkers - we will be electing a Governor and countless Representatives in Albany. Now is the time to unite with your fellow Patriots. It does not matter if we are Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, or Independents. We are all Americans first.... Our Rights and Freedoms are in the balance. God Bless America  

By Harold Moskowitz

Until about 1925, few Americans questioned a person’s right to own a firearm for protection of life and property. In the eighteenth century, armed farmers helped win our independence. Firearms were essential for homestead defense against Native American attacks and wild animals in the nineteenth century. As the nation expanded westward, the Colt revolver became the “Great Equalizer” in mining camps and “cow towns.” Ranchers and farmers would not have agreed upon much except the usefulness of Henry and Winchester rifles. 

However, America was changing. Power farm equipment replaced horses. There was much less need for ‘hired hands’ for harvesting. Millions of these now unemployed men and their families migrated to the cities where they joined the throngs of immigrant families. The dramatic increase in urban population gave cities increasing political power over rural areas. By 1910, census data indicated that a majority of the population lived in cities. 

Rural people felt comfortable with firearms and knew how to handle them safely. In the densely populated ethnic neighborhoods of cities like New York, firearms were viewed as a dangerous menace. In the southern part of Manhattan, criminal street gangs used handguns to eliminate rival gang members and for extorting money from shopkeepers. In 1903, two rival gangs, the Eastmans and the Five Points Gang had a five-hour shootout. When police arrived, both gangs began firing at responding officers. 

The firearms used by the criminal gangs were not illegal to possess but there was a ten dollar fine for carrying a concealed firearm in the city. State Senator Timothy Sullivan represented this part of the city and instinctively saw an advantage in proposing a gun control law in Albany. His “Sullivan Law” took effect in 1911. It made buying or selling a handgun a felony in the state unless the person had a license for the handgun. Licenses were required for state residents if a firearm was small enough to be concealed. Possession of an unlicensed firearm would be a misdemeanor but carrying the weapon became a felony. The law was a “may issue” statute. Police were given authority to decide whether or not a person would receive a concealed carry license. The jury is still out on whether or not Sullivan actually believed in gun control. 

At the time, he was also the head of the New York City Democrat political machine “Tamany Hall.” For getting out the vote on Election Day, prepaid drinks were available at local saloons for those who voted “the right way.” Intimidation at the polls was also a useful method of guaranteeing votes. “Big Tim” Sullivan had a working relationship with the leaders of both the Eastmans and the Five Points criminal gangs. He is said to have also had his own “soldiers” for use on Election Day. Passage of his law would make it possible for his own men to be among the few who could legally carry firearms in the city. New York City historian George Lankevich has claimed that the law’s motivation was for Sullivan’s friends on the police force to plant handguns on his political rivals’ thugs and have them arrested. 

The Sullivan Law was the start of gun control. In 1927, Congress ended mail order handgun sales. Due to a rash of bank robberies and Prohibition Era use of Thompson submachine guns by gangsters, Congress passed the Firearms Act of 1934. It regulated machine guns plus rifles and shotguns with shortened barrels. The Firearms Act of 1938 helped the states to enforce their own recently enacted gun control laws by requiring individuals and manufacturers to have a federal license for making, sending, receiving, or selling firearms. 

Elected politicians since Timothy Sullivan have capitalized on gun-related violence for personal gain. They are aided and abetted by the news media. The spotlight needs to be on the real causes of violence in our society: the constant failure of urban elected officials to prosecute under existing laws those individuals who are killing and injuring others with illegally possessed handguns; the insufficient resources for treatment of people with mental health issues; the proliferation of movies, videogames and song lyrics which glorify violence while degrading the value of human life. 

We need to express clearly to the younger generation why Second Amendment rights are important for all law-abiding people. Erosion of the Second Amendment is a civil rights issue and should be constantly portrayed as such whenever an opportunity presents itself. Finally, those whose ultimate goal is to end the individual right to keep and bear arms wait for the public emotion which follows each mass shooting. With perceived public support, they incrementally push forward with their agenda. Without a solid constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court, we will likely have to deal with ongoing erosion of the Second Amendment. 

By Don Smith

Recertification became a reality in the amended NY Penal Law as part (b) of Section 400.10: (b) All licensees shall be re-certified to the division of state police every five years thereafter. Any license issued before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph shall be re-certified by the licensee on or before January thirty-first, two thousand eighteen, and not less than one year prior to such date, the state police shall send a notice to all license holders who have not recertified by such time. Such recertification shall be in a form as approved by the superintendent of state police, which shall request the license holder's name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number, firearms possessed by such license holder, email address at the option of the license holder and an affirmation that such license holder is not prohibited from possessing firearms. The form may be in an electronic form if so designated by the superintendent of state police. Failure to re-certify shall act as a revocation of such license. If the New York State Police discover as a result of the recertification process that a licensee failed to provide a change of address, the New York State Police shall not require the licensing officer to revoke such license. 

The State Police has provided the County Clerks Association with memos to update them on recertification over many months. These memos have been modified since changes to the various 'requirements' have occurred. One such change by the State Police was the decision not to issue a "recertification card to be carried with the permit at all times". Note this requirement was never in the statute. What other "requirements" are not in the statute? 

These are some of the statements in the memos provided to the Clerks and then the facts according to the statute. Discuss them with your State Senator. 

• "Recertification is a State Police function. The County Clerks do not have a role". Licensees are NOT recertified by the State Police. Licensees re-certify themselves by providing to the NYS Police (per the statute) "the license holder's name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number, firearms possessed by such license holder, email address at the option of the license holder and an affirmation that such license holder is not prohibited from possessing firearms." 

• “Any permit holder that does not have a valid NYS driver’s license or ID will be required to get one. This includes out of state residents that are permit holders.” In the first place, out of state residents are not eligible to receive a NY State ID and it is unlawful to have a NY State driver’s license and another state’s driver’s license at the same time. By this requirement, the  State Police is attempting to revoke the statute which does not require NY residency in order to be a permit holder. Moreover, no statutory provision requires a permit holder to have a valid NYS driver’s license or ID in order to be eligible to receive or to retain a permit. The Division of NY State Police does not have authority to impose requirements for the recertification of a permit holder or to repeal the law which allows nonresidents to have a NY State permit. Except pursuant to NY Penal Law §400.02 which relates to retired sworn members of the NYS Police, permits are denied, issued and revoked by local licensing officers, not by the NYS Police. Note also that there is case law that says a permit holder does not need to be a resident. They just need to have a verifiable address. Thus the snow birds who have Florida residency but still spend summers in NY can maintain their NY pistol permit. 

• “Counties will be notified when recertification is approved.” Nothing in the statute confers upon the State Police the authority to approve or disapprove recertification. When the State Police receives the information it should notify the County Clerk that the licensee has re-certified, unless, after checking whatever data bases may be at its disposal, it discovers information that calls into question whether the licensee is precluded by law from possessing the license. If the State Police determine that such information exists, it should provide that information to the licensing officer who is the only one who has the statutory authority to issue, deny or revoke the license. 

• "Recertification discrepancies must be corrected by amendment to license at the county level. Applicants will be instructed to do so." Note the continued use of the term “applicant” rather than “Licensee”. Licensees re-certifying their information are not applying for anything. The term “applicant” implies that the NYS Police have authority to grant or deny a right. It does not have that power. Only the licensing officer has that power. Similarly, the NYS Police have no authority to “instruct” licensees to do anything. It certainly can alert the licensee and the licensing officer of the “discrepancy” but it is then up to the licensing authority to take whatever action it may deem appropriate if the licensee fails to remedy the “discrepancy.” Note that the State Police are attempting to place themselves in the position of the licensing authority.

• “If the applicant re-certifies by mail, they will receive a return receipt with a tracking number.” The licensee is not an “applicant”, but note that this acknowledges that the licensee is re-certifying, not that the NYS Police is re-certifying the applicant. 

• “The recertification application is just like a pistol permit application without the references. The applicant is required to list all arrests, drug or alcohol treatment, mental illness, or family court petition or charge.” Again, licensees are not applicants. They are licensees, and the statute only requires the licensee to provide the licensee’s name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, SS#, and firearms possessed together with an affirmation that the licensee in not prohibited from possessing firearms. The State Police are not authorized to rewrite laws. 

• "There are four steps to the recertification process: (a) Submission of application (b) Acceptance of application (c) Review/return for correction (d) Approval / Revocation." (a) Licensees are not submitting applications, they are submitting certifications. (b) and (c) If a certification is illegible, on the wrong form, incomplete, or received from a nonlicensee refusing to accept it and returning it for correction makes sense, but only for those reasons. (d) The NYS Police do not “approve” the recertification and it certainly has no authority to revoke a license. 

• "If the applicant is negative on the data base checks, “the application is approved." Again, the licensee is not an “applicant” and the NYS Police do not “approve” anything. If the data base check is negative, proof of recertification should be issued. 

• “Positives will be referred to the licensing officer for revocation or clarification.” The NYS Police have no authority to instruct the licensing officers how to discharge their statutory duties. As noted above, if the NYS Police uncover information that calls into question the licensee’s right to continued possession of the license, it is up to the licensing officer to determine the proper course of conduct. 

• “If the NYS Police determine that it cannot re-certify the permit, the recertification is sent to the licensing officer." The NYS Police do not recertify the permit. The licensee recertifies. 

• “According to the State Police Lieutenant addressing the County Clerks, the object of the recertification process is to create a “pristine” data base that any law enforcement official would be able to access at any time with real time information.” What is a “pristine” data base? I thought that the object of the recertification process was to make NY Safe by assuring that people who have the subject licenses are not under a statutory disability that would prohibit them from retaining the rights granted to us by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. 

• “The Lieutenant stated that the pistol permit data would be linked to the DMV data base and an officer would know that a pulled over vehicle was owned by a pistol permit holder.” Is that because there has been an epidemic in NY of shootings of police officers during traffic stops by holders of pistol permits? I doubt that has EVER happened, and if it has, that it has not happened more than once or twice since the Sullivan Law went into effect a little more than 103 years ago. Does this mean that when permit holders are stopped for routine traffic offenses we will be frisked and our firearms taken from us “for our own protection” during the encounter. If that occurs will the officer remove the magazine to make certain that it is not holding more than 10 rounds? Will our permits be demanded so that the officer can make sure that the handgun is registered on our permit? Is that information provided to out of state police officers who may stop a permit holder for a minor traffic infraction while traveling outside of NY State? 

• “Indicating a pistol permit on the face of a driver’s license is not a decision that has been made yet." OMG!! Really? On the face of the driver’s license? Talk about invasion of privacy. The statute provides that we may opt out of making that information a matter of public record, yet if it is decided to put it on our driver’s license, pistol permit holders will be forced to disclose that very private piece of information to the cashiers at Wal-Mart and any number of other retail outlets, such as Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe’s, etc. etc., and other places as well, when making returns, applying for credit, cashing a check, receiving medical care, and so on. When the record of the permit is made, do we then become targets for burglaries? Besides, many of us have already completed an "Opt-Out form, Why does the recertification form deal with this issue? If we are out of state when a traffic infraction occurs, will the local police want to search us and our vehicles to see if we are illegally in possession of a firearm in their jurisdiction? What happens if we decline to permit the search of our vehicles? Is the result hours by the side of the road while the gun, bomb, and drug sniffing dogs are brought in, or worse? Is there no end to New York’s harassment of her citizens who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to protect themselves, and their families? 

• “There was a Power Point for the presentation but the Lieutenant said it would not be released to the clerk’s.” Why not? What is it about the proposed process that needs to be kept secret from the public. Secrecy is what permitted the NY SAFE travesty to be enacted in the first place. Is the next round by the State Police Gov. Cuomo’s emulation of President Obama’s decision to ignore Congress and rule by administrative action? This begs for a demand under the State's Freedom of Information Act. What is in that Power Point?" 

By Tom Reynolds

It’s easy to have a personal opinion on political issues but when speaking for an organization, one must attempt to be rational and consistent before giving one’s opinion.  Take for instance the issue of endorsing candidates.  Most, if not all Second Amendment supporters would agree that the leadership/establishment of the Democratic Party are radically Anti-2A; I doubt if that leadership would deny it.  But what happens when an individual candidate comes out of the “Democratic Closet” and supports 2A?  Do we support or not support such an exceptional person? My answer is, “It depends”. 

Allow me to set out some principles so, “It depends”, is not as wishy-washy as it sounds.  At the federal level (the House and the Senate) and the state level (the Assembly and the Senate) the leaders of the majority party (Speaker or Majority Leader) have tremendous power.  They decide what does and does not happen.  Unfortunately, the Democratic leaders are now firmly members of the Anti-2A establishment.  When we elect a legislator, they help put their party in the majority which, in the case of Democrats, means Anti-2A legislation will abound.  While a Democratic legislative candidate may truly be pro-2A, I do not believe we can take a chance on electing Democratic leadership, so I would not be able to recommend endorsing such a Democratic candidate in the general election.  

But what about non-legislative candidates such as D.A.’s, Sheriffs and judges?  They do not create a majority, they are a one person majority! Would I ever recommend supporting a Democrat who is truly pro-2A for D.A., Sheriff or judge?  If it was during a Democratic primary, the vision of a pro-2A Democrat running against a pro-2A Republican in the general election is delicious to contemplate.  Remember, some gun owners are Democrats and in a district where the Democrats are a majority the Democrat will probably be the eventual winner.  So, yes, I could see myself recommending endorsement of a pro-2A Democrat during their primary.

 But, what about the general election?  First, remember that almost all Republicans give verbal support to 2A when campaigning but many are not exactly rabid in their support, after the election.  What if a Democrat, while serving as D.A., Sheriff or judge, had truly demonstrated support for 2A and was running against a Republican who seemed wishy-washy in support of 2A.  I might find it possible to cautiously recommend support for the Democrat.  I say “might” because of an intangible; these people are products of their political parties and I would have to be convinced they would stand up to the intra-party pressure they would receive.  If a true 2A Republican supporter were running against a 2A Democratic supporter, then the Republican has to get the endorsement.  Personal character is always to be considered but why take a chance?  

Having laid out some principles, what information do we base the decision upon?  Rating forms are often used that pick out several important votes to measure how a sitting legislative candidate has voted.  Unfortunately, that can be deceptive.  Examples from history are effective and we had an excellent example during the Obama Administration of why a rating based on votes is deceptive.  Republicans usually ran against Obamacare and voted to repeal it some thirty times; thirty times that never had a chance to be signed into law over Obama’s veto.  But since Republicans regained the Presidency, they haven’t yet gotten enough votes together to repeal.  So, should they get any credit for thirty meaningless votes which, on paper, seemed to exhibit the desire to repeal Obamacare?  If you were rating candidates before a Republican gained the Presidency, you had thirty votes on which to make a rating decision.  Of course, you could have ignored the votes because they never had a chance of succeeding (I would have done that).  After the election, you had a truer representation and most would probably ignore those earlier thirty votes. 

We have a similar problem with 2A legislation here in NY.  The NY Assembly and Governor Cuomo are major blocks to any pro-2A legislation. Republicans are constantly introducing bills that have no chance of being enacted into law, but they seek credit for their meaningless efforts.  In fairness, Democrats in the Assembly do the same thing and introduce anti-2A bills that will never be approved by the Republican Senate.  The Republicans do deserve credit for blocking these bills and it should remind us how tenuous our situation is since just one Senator gives us the majority; if we lose the majority, the craziness out of NY City would become law!  

Basing a rating on just votes is, in my opinion, not usually valid, but it is an easy method.  More subjectively, there should be a second level of questions.  For instance, the legislator should be asked, “You introduced / voted for a pro-2A bill but it never realistically had a chance to become law.  Tell us what you did besides introduce/vote for the bill that increased its chance to become law”.  Or, you could ask, “Why did you not use the Rent Control issue in 2016 or the 421-A issue in 2017 to help repeal the SAFE Act”.  As I stated, the answers are subjective, which makes them harder to rate but the answers are also important.  

Of course, there is another element. What happens when a radically Anti-2A candidate is running against a wishy-washy pro-2A candidate?  It’s easy to give out the “F” rating but there is always pressure on grade inflation. We don’t want to take a chance that the Anti-2A candidate is elected, so a “C” often becomes an “A” and that candidate proclaims forevermore that S.C.O.P.E. gave them an “A”.  My answer to the ratings question is that the most valuable ratings must be a bit subjective and should relay to the reader the rationale as well as the voting history.  Also, the ratings should be done by a group and vote counts should be published; for instance, “The ratings committee gave the candidate a “B” by a 3 to 2 vote.  The committee was influenced by his lack of support for…”.