frontlines

By Richard Rossi, Delaware County SCOPE 

I realize that Independence Day has passed by the time you received this issue of the Firing Lines. I hope you took a few minutes out of all the celebrations to ‘thank’ our first Patriots who fought for our rights - Liberty, Freedom and the establishment of our Republic and, of course, our veterans as well as the men and women currently serving in our armed forces. That being said, I would first like to talk about our GUN RIGHTS as Law-abiding American Citizens. 

As we all know, our "Bill of Rights" is the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ratified December 15, 1791). Our Founding Fathers clearly intended these to be Rights of all American Citizens and not to be privileges granted by our government to the people. The concept of the "right to keep and bear arms" predates our Constitution. It is an unalienable right of self preservation that dates back to the creation of man. It is man’s nature to protect his life from death and danger. 

The 2nd Amendment is a right that our citizens may choose whether or not to exercise. If a citizen does not wish to own a firearm, by choice, that is his/her right. However, no one can say that we cannot freely exercise this right if we choose. In our effort to protect and defend gun rights, does stating that we are pro-gun establish a barrier right at the start of our conversations with the anti-gun movement folks? 

People that are anti-gun believe guns are bad and as soon as they hear those words - they are against you. You have lost any opportunity for discussion in the first critical seconds. A better way to start a conversation would be stating “I am ProRights”, followed by “How about you”? If they are anti-rights; then you have the upper hand. 

How can anyone not be pro-rights, pro-freedom and pro-self-defense? At this point, the conversation has taken on a completely new twist and it is in your favor. This is exactly what the anti-gun groups and the media have been doing for years. How many times have you heard, "If it saves just one life it is worth it", in connection with so-called “common sense gun laws"?How can you not be for saving lives? 

If someone asks about 'Assault Weapons' and asks, “Do you think common citizens should be allowed to own one”? Your first response should be, “What is an assault weapon? Assault is a behavior, not hardware. What are you talking about”? Then you can follow with, “I believe it is appropriate for law-abiding citizens to own common household firearms”. 

If someone asks, “Do you believe in Gun Control”. Respond - I am for Crime control, how about you? Undoubtedly, they will respond yes - how can they say no. This opens the door to the use of firearms for legitimate reasons of self-defense by both citizens and the police. 

Ask the question, “Who is the First Responder on either workplace violence or any mass-shooting or terror attack”? Better yet, ask, “Who is the ‘First Responder’ in a confrontation”? The typical response will involve the police or some law enforcement person. Wrong answer. The First Responders ARE THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL ONSET OF THE INCIDENT. When seconds count between life and death, you and only you are the ones that need to react in self-preservation mode. 

Dialing 911 (wishing, hoping and praying a man with a gun arrives to save the day) or waiting for LEO's to arrive may get you killed. This is why 'Gun-Free Zones' are a safe-haven for criminals. They are counting on Law-abiding citizen's being unarmed and they know well that they will be safe to inflict their carnage, free from armed intervention, for the first critical minute or two. 

As gun owners and citizens that believe guns save lives, we need to be aware and use the anti-gun movements terms against them. We need to think outside the box. You get the picture.... You will never convince the indoctrinated anti-gun person to see your side of the conversation; however, we need to reach the 'middle of the roaders'. The individuals that are on the fence are the ones we need to reach and convert. They have heard the rhetoric that is being thrown around to make non-gun owners fearful for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. 

These are the individuals you, as gun-owners, need to reach and pull into our court. This is where we can make the best possible difference. The anti-gun groups and media will at every instance of a shooting, start their fear agenda campaign again for more “common sense” gun control measures. They will immediately need to move while this is in the minds of law-abiding citizens. What better motivation than fear; facts are not needed. Assault weapon and high capacity magazines will be publicized if a rifle was used as will the need for more gun-free zones and more background checks. ”How did this mentally unstable individual get a gun” will be asked. The need for a 10 round magazine limit will be seen as too many. We need to do more to end the violence and the unneeded deaths of these innocent victims but we need to focus on the ‘root causes’. 

Law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes. Criminals do not abide by gun control measures and laws. We need to investigate our criminal justice system, plea bargaining, and our mental health and services departments. Why are criminals on the street? Why are repeat offenders getting reduced sentences and parole? Why are the seriously mentally ill on the streets? Ask any anti-gun individual or group to respond to these questions and they may quickly and automatically switch the emphasis to the weapon rather than the individual responsible for the assault.

 Unfortunately, our society has removed individual responsibility and made it society’s responsibility to prevent and be responsible for these actions. There is another issue to be considered, beyond direct intervention with the anti-Second Amendment left. Last month, I came across an article (don't recall the author or the source) that was concerned with the system of 'Checks and Balances' that our founding fathers put in place to prevent abuse by any one branch of government - Executive, legislative or judicial. The concept, in my opinion, was well conceived and relevant. 

Our Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The process is politically biased for the most part. Our SC is today composed of members that are biased towards either the Republican or Democratic view points and philosophy. The intent of our Founding Fathers was to insure that our Constitution would be followed and this branch of our government would serve as an ultimate litmus test. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is no longer true.

 Many of the decisions have been biased and are based on unconstitutional grounds. These individuals serve for life and 'We the People' have no say in their appointment or their removal. Should term and age limits be added? Some food for thought... We have seen how Second Amendment issues have played over the past several years. A few cases have reached the SC level with, perhaps, more in the future as lower courts keep infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. 

We know for certain our District Courts, Appeal Courts and many lower courts are biased. We have countless 'gun laws' being imposed all across this country with bias motives and without Constitutional review We may soon be seeing how our safety as a nation is at risk; will the SC stand behind the Presidents sworn oath to keep our nation safe and confirm his Executive Orders as Constitutional? Will politics influence our SC to the point of placing our nation in danger? The answers will be revealed in time. 

The only chance for Law-abiding gun owners is to get involved, vote out the 'Gun Grabbers' from every elected office all across this country; from city and town Mayors to your State Senators and every political office in between. If you did not get an opportunity to read the last issue (May/ June) of ‘Firing Lines’; please read the article on JURY DUTY, it concerns ‘JURY NULLIFICATION’. Don't let our original Patriots who fought and died for our independence down. They put everything on the line for our Nation. Ensure that our Rights and Freedoms are enduring and everlasting in their honor. These men and boys - some as young as nine years old and many in their teens, fought and some died for us.  

by Unknown

 In Warsaw, NY a hearing was held to amend the law that bans pistol permit holders from carrying in county buildings. The monthly Board of Supervisors meeting was packed and 12 speakers voiced their opinion, for and against the potential change in law. The Wyoming County chapter of SCOPE was instrumental in this legislation. They worked with the public safety committee in drafting the potential change. Some of the speakers were from SCOPE, including chapter chair Mark Yount II. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence representative Gary Pudup was there to voice his disapproval of the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, even if the amendment is passed, certain state and federal regulations would supersede the county’s proposed legislation. This means concealed carry would still be prohibited in the hospital, mental health buildings, social services buildings, the courthouse and the Ag and Business center, since some tenants there fall under federal regulations.  

By Harold Moskowitz

What would happen if every device upon which you have become dependent in your daily life stopped working? Impossible you say because even with the built in obsolescence of our “throw away rather than fix” society, not everything could break at the same time. However, almost every device and machine touching your daily life operates with electricity either directly or by rechargeable b a t t e r y . E l e c t r i c i t y , t h a t “pressurized” flow of electrons through wires and circuits, has become the “life blood” of our 21st century society. 

This was not yet true in the mid-19th century. On September 1, 1859, telegraph wires began to catch fire, telegraph keys showered sparks and their operators received electric shocks. The Carrington Event, as this situation was labeled, was an example of damage which can be caused naturally by the sun. It was a solar flare which caused a geomagnetic “storm” of electrons on Earth. During a solar flare, protons and other sub-atomic particles are shot into space from the sun’s surface. If the Earth is in the path of these particles, the protons smash into nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere causing the release of electrons. These rush toward the Earth creating a type of radio wave called an electromagnetic pulse, or “EMP.” As with an induction surge of electric current through a wire resulting from a nearby lightning strike, it will overload and destroy transformers and delicate electrical components. This is especially true for closely-spaced microchips in circuit boards. Solar flare damage can happen at any time. 

In 1989, one of these plunged all of Quebec into darkness. In 2005, a solar flare disrupted satellite-to-ground communication and the GPS system for about ten minutes, threatening satellite guided air, land, and sea travel. In 1859’s Carrington Event, few people except for telegraph users were affected. In today’s electrically dependent society, a severe geomagnetic storm would be catastrophic. It has been estimated that a modern day Carrington Event would cost society between one and two trillion dollars for just the first year of lost power with full recovery predicted to take four to ten years. 

In 2007, NASA estimated the potential damage to its satellite fleet to be between thirty and seventy billion dollars to repair. In addition, it revealed that any humans in space not inside the shelter of a spacecraft while involved in a “space walk” would be endangered. Satellite damage would prevent GPS from being used in addition to all phone use. In all cases, a solar flare induced EMP would potentially cause much damage to power grids in the areas affected by the resulting geomagnetic storm. The ability to produce a man -made EMP was discovered by accident during the U.S. and Russian above-ground nuclear tests. Nuclear blasts produce short bursts of electromagnetic energy which cause the same effects as a solar flare. 

In 1962, an atmospheric nuclear test over a Pacific atoll blew out street lights and knocked out telephone service in Hawaii, almost one thousand miles from the detonation. The Russians also noticed electrical disruptions caused by their tests. Both Cold War adversaries then developed special nuclear devices for a potential first strike EMP against the other as a means of preventing a retaliatory nuclear attack. The nuclear explosion causes rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields. 

These may merge with power grid distribution systems and electrical systems such as microchip controllers on equipment to produce damaging current and voltage surges. As an example, pylon mounted high tension lines spanning the nation become a super antenna along which these damaging surges travel and intensify. When they reach the down-stepping current transformers, the transformers become overloaded causing them to explode and to catch fire. In individual electrical devices controlled by silicon microchips, the delicate components burn out, disabling the device or system. 

The altitude at which the nuclear detonation takes place determines the extent of territory which would be subject to the damaging effect of the EMP. As in the case of solar flares, a specially constructed low yield nuclear device releases gamma rays which cause the release of electrons from collisions with nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The electrons rush toward the ground following the Earth’s magnetic field lines. They travel from the altitude of the detonation in a direct line to where they reach the curvature of the Earth. 

The Task Force on National and Homeland Security has determined that a nuclear device detonated at an altitude of between 186 and 249 miles over the center of our nation would electronically cripple all of the Continental United States, plus half of both Canada and Mexico. Part II will deal with how an EMP attack would affect gun owners and others.

By Tim Andrews, SCOPE President

Unless our Governor calls them in for a special session, the 2017 legislative session, has adjourned for the year. The good news is we’ve suffered no additional damage to our Second Amendment rights. The bad news is we’ve made no gains either, the SAFE Act remains intact. It’s time to assess where we are now and what we need to do in the future. 

First my assessment of where we are now. I’m not going to sugarcoat it, it’s not good. There was a lot of wheeling and dealing going on at the end of legislative session. A lot of people were getting their pet projects passed, but law-abiding gun owners were left out in the cold. Legislators showed more interest in naming bridges and parks after themselves than protecting the constitutional rights of their citizens. 

The New York State Senate potentially provides us our greatest chance to initiate positive changes to our gun laws, however, not the way it is currently structured. One example, this past session there was a bill in the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee to lift the ban on the sale and possession of firearm suppressors. The Environmental Conservation Committee is chaired by Republican Senator Thomas O’Mara and has an 8-5 Republican majority. So, you say, slam dunk, right? Hold on, not quite. Senator O’Mara pulled back the bill from consideration, telling us he did not have the votes to pass it out of committee. You heard that right, an 8-5 Republican majority and he can’t get the bill through his committee. The ugly dog in the room is, if we cannot pass pro-gun legislation with an 8-5 Republican majority how can the Republicans call themselves a pro-Second Amendment party?

A close examination of the committee’s members shows that two, if not three of the Republican members are clearly anti-gun. Using the NRA’s most recent ratings two of the Republicans have “D” ratings and the third has a “?” rating. My question for the Senate Republican leadership is, how do three anti-gun Senators end up on any committee that deals with gun issues? 

In a June 25, 2017 story in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, regarding the appointment of Judge Paul Feinman to the state court of appeals, Governor Cuomo was full of praise for Senate Republicans. The Governor said, “I appreciate the Senate going through the confirmation process as quickly as they did.” That wasn’t enough, Republicans were also instrumental in helping Cuomo get the Tappan Zee bridge named after his father, former governor Mario Cuomo. 

Wouldn’t it have been nice if the Republicans had used one or both of these senate actions as leverage to get some concessions on the (un)SAFE Act? I’m a little tired and frustrated with politicians and a party that routinely says they’re pro-gun but never delivers. You’ve heard the saying, “talk is cheap.” 

We’re not ready to divorce the GOP but this is an issue we feel Republicans need to consider in the coming months. One of the most egregious victims of the (un)SAFE Act is Simeon Mokhiber of Niagara Falls, New York. Simeon is a nine year combat veteran of the U.S. Army who served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Simeon was involved in a traffic stop in 2016 and was charged with DUI, he was not drinking and was ultimately acquitted of that charge. However, the charge resulted in a search of his vehicle where the officers found a locked box. Inside that box were three seventeen round Glock magazines, a violation of the ten-round magazine size limit of the SAFE Act. Simeon was a concealed carry license holder, but had no firearm with him on the night of his arrest.  

On April 21, 2017, Simeon Mokhiber was found guilty of possessing three “ammunition feeding devices” capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, a violation of the SAFE Act. Simeon’s sentencing date is August 1, 2017, and is facing up to 21 years in prison, 7 years on each count and is now a convicted felon. At a recent Chapter meeting, I addressed the members about Simeon’s case and the many other victims of the mental health provisions of the (un)SAFE Act. My comments did include criticism of the senate GOP, and present at this event was a GOP senate member who took great issue with my criticisms. 

The Senator made it very clear she was angry and disagreed with my critique of her senate colleagues. However, what struck me was she wasn’t angry about the harm the SAFE act was inflicting on law-abiding New Yorkers like Simeon Mokhiber. Although most of my remarks focused on (un) SAFE Act victims, all this senator heard or cared about was how she and her senate colleagues were regarded by my remarks. 

A question for our state representatives to consider — is this the intended consequence the governor and the legislature wanted? Were Simeon and his empty locked magazines a danger to anyone? Did they warrant a felony conviction and possibly twenty-one years in prison? Is this the thanks Simeon gets from the State of New York for his honorable service to his country? Simeon was, until this conviction, a law-abiding citizen, the father of a disabled child who may soon be without a father. These are the fruits of Governor Cuomo’s and the state legislature’s (un)SAFE Act. The (un)SAFE Act is a travesty and it needs to be repealed. 

By Harold Moskowitz

The greatest threat to a nation’s existence is a man-made EMP attack. It would transport us instantly back to the pre-industrial era. Currently, there are two announced enemies of our nation who continue to advance in both ICBM technology and the ability to miniaturize a nuclear device to the size necessary for insertion into a missile nose cone. 

One of these nations is Iran, the other is North Korea. They have been collaborating for almost twenty years on developing the technology necessary to bring our nation to its knees through an EMP attack. They have participated in fruitless negotiations to buy time for continuing their progress. North Korea currently has two satellites in orbit. Each passes directly over the center of our nation in a south to north orbit. 

The U.S. has no missile defense system or early warning system pointed in a southerly direction. All such systems were built facing north to detect and intercept missiles from the former U.S.S.R. coming over the North Pole. EMP-causing devices can be camouflaged as communication satellites. Missiles and even weather balloons could lift nuclear devices to appropriate altitudes from a freighter in the Gulf of Mexico. 

China and Russia have hardened their electrical grids to prevent mass disruption and destruction from an EMP attack. Our national government has protected crucial military equipment. In addition, one of six electrically hardened planes is always aloft for military communication in case of an EMP attack. Presidential jets are similarly protected. 

However, nothing meaningful has been done to protect the civilian population. At its start, EMP power disruption would appear to be another temporary local outage. There is no radioactive fallout. Although initially no one is hurt except for those in airplanes crashing to the ground, it is estimated that up to ninety percent of the U.S. population could die within the first year following the attack. 

Most of the enormous generators are not made in the nation and replacing them could take years. Without power, moving replacement equipment might not be possible. Estimated recovery time could take as long as a decade. Death over the next weeks and months would come from many causes. The average city has about three days of food in stores. Much of that and food in home refrigerators will immediately begin to spoil. Hungry, desperate people will attack each other for food as anarchy replaces the civil society. Medicines will begin to spoil. Life-preserving medical equipment will stop working. Without power there is no: water for drinking, toilet flushing, or personal hygiene; fuel for vehicles; heating oil or natural gas; medicine refills for chronic medical conditions; surgery or medical help beyond “first aid;” air conditioning; removal of human waste or garbage; ability to deal with inevitable epidemics caused by drinking untreated water; banking; or effective government communication to a panicked population. 

On top of these, add the release of radiation from one hundred or more nuclear reactors which have meltdowns due to inability to circulate cooling water. City dwellers will head for the surrounding suburbs. Anyone within a five day walk of a city should expect the roads to be clogged with desperate people who will try to take whatever they need for survival. Only old vehicles without computer circuits and fuel injectors might still operate. Rural people would have the best chance of survival, urban residents almost none.

Firearm owners should expect attempts at confiscation of registered weapons. Those individuals who have only practiced pistol competition target skills may find themselves at a disadvantage when confronting foragers. Proficiency in tactical pistol and carbine skills would be beneficial. In addition, no individual can protect all sides of a structure 24/7. Only those who have formed dependable community protection groups will successfully defend their resources. 

The government has known for decades what an EMP could do to our nation and to its population. Why then has nothing been done to harden our three electric grids? The answer is that electricity in the U.S. is mostly generated by utility corporations which make dividend payments to  shareholders. Any time an appropriate bill such as Representative Trent Franks’ “SHIELD Act” is introduced into the House, it passes but gets stalled in the Senate. Senators, perhaps are listening to the paid lobbyists who represent the electric-generating utility corporations. The industry members would become responsible for hardening the electric grids and would not want to collectively spend the estimated seventy-two billion dollars necessary to protect the nation’s electrical power, an amount about equal to one year’s military aid to Pakistan.  

by Gary L. Perry, Tioga County

Larry Sharpe cannot win the NY State Governor’s election this November.

Unfortunately, the only viable pathway to a Larry Sharpe victory in the NY State Governor’s race was not taken by the campaign.  Although originally interested and excited about using the “Opportunity To Ballot” (OTB) option as a possible pathway to victory the Larry Sharpe campaign has chosen not to follow that path.

The OTB is a legal way for a 3^rd Party candidate to force a primary election in a major political Party. Collecting the OTB designating petition signatures would have been very doable.  However, winning a primary election is challenging and would have required some resources and commitment from Larry Sharpe and his campaign which they originally assured me that we would have.

For reasons unclear to me the Larry Sharpe campaign made the decision to pass designating petitions for Larry Sharpe for Governor on Republican Party Petitions.  (see attached)  This is in direct conflict of NY State Election law.

See Section 6-120.3 Designation and nominations; restrictions 

" 1. A petition, except as otherwise herein provided, for the purpose of designating any person as a candidate for party nomination at a primary election shall be valid only if the person so designated is an enrolled member of the party referred to in said designating petition at the time of the filing of the petition."

Our mission is to replace Andrew Cuomo as the NY State Governor.  Following through with the campaign slogan begun over five years ago “Cuomo’s Gotta Go”.  Andrew Cuomo has brought the citizens of New York State increased and never ending tax increases, increased state spending, increased corporate give-aways (billions in corporate welfare) and the never ending corruption trials taking place in Manhattan and Buffalo that these failed economic stimulus programs breeds, failed common core education, “free” college tuition and never ending anti-2^ndAmendment legislation.

Under Andrew Cuomo’s policies NY State is bleeding manufacturing and small business and the jobs that they create.  Working class families and college educated young adults are leaving the state in droves seeking good high paying jobs available in other state.  Working people and retired state employees of all ages across the entire state are leaving NY State for lower taxes found in many other state.

For those of us who are left who want to fix NY State’s failed fiscal and economic policies we know we must defeat Andrew Cuomo in November.

History and election statistics prove to us that Larry Sharpe appearing on only the 3^rd Party Libertarian ballot line simply cannot defeat Cuomo.  Going back five elections (20 years) we see failed attempt after failed attempt by 3^rd Party candidates to defeat the Democrat and Republican Party candidates.

Please visit the NY State Board Of Elections website and look at the previous election stats to see for yourself.    http://www.elections.ny.gov/2018ElectionResults.html

Wealthy former New Yorker Tom Golisano ran in three successive elections as a 3^rd Party candidate and had far more resources available to him than the Larry Sharpe campaign and he never came close to winning.  The past two gubernatorial elections the Libertarian Party has failed to gain 50,000 votes establishing their Party on a ballot line. 

As the recent events have unfolded it has proven to me that the Libertarian Party knows that Larry Sharpe has literally no chance of winning the Governor’s election.  What the Libertarians hope to accomplish is getting 50,000 votes on the Libertarian line making it easier in future elections for Libertarian candidates to get on the ballot for many different elective office positions.  (Ballot Access)

Larry Sharpe in his own words:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXkd15Xe1e4

This year there is a very real chance to defeat Andrew Cuomo (Cuomo’s Gotta Go) with a combined Republican Party / Conservative Party / Reform Party candidate. While I will always support giving the voters a choice in a primary election the Larry Sharpe campaign has decided not to pursue the legal process to do this.  Any signatures collected for Larry Sharpe on a Republican Party ballot will be null and void at the Board Of Elections office in Albany when they are submitted and filed.

After spending time with Republican Party candidate Marc Molinaro last week I have learned that with Marc Molinaro as the candidate we support we have a very real opportunity to defeat Cuomo (Cuomo’s Gotta Go).  For these reasons the only real choice, at this time, to replace Andrew Cuomo and end four more years of Cuomo’s destructive tax and spend policies is to support Marc Molinaro.

For those of us who continue to insist on supporting Larry Sharpe for Governor, I highly recommend getting behind the “Larry Sharpe For Governor 2022 movement”.  This could be, and should be, the long game or the 10 to 20-year plan several of you have spoken about.

To throw away a chance to defeat Andrew Cuomo (Cuomo’s Gotta Go) this year hoping to gain ballot access for the Libertarian Party is a terrible sell-out to your principled fellow Conservative family members, friends and neighbors.  I cannot in good conscience even consider enslaving my children, family members and friends with four more years of Andrew Cuomo just to gain easier Ballot Access for the Libertarian Party. 

What will be left of NY State and it’s citizens and for any 3^rd Party designs after 2 - 4 more years of Andrew Cuomo doubling down on his Progressive tax and spend policies and “give-aways” as he works to position himself even further to the left as the most Progressive Governor in the country for a Presidential bid in 2020?

This November a vote for Larry Sharpe is the same as a vote for Andrew Cuomo.   I am asking everyone to please consider the reality of this situation here in NY State and join me in voting for Marc Molinaro in November and defeating Andrew Cuomo (Cuomo’s Gotta Go) and then get behind the “Larry Sharpe For Governor 2022 movement” starting this December. 

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.