frontlines

A New Case Gives the Supreme Court a Chance To Defend Gun Rights  John Stossel 6.30.2021

It's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn't demonstrated a "special need."

Why did they have to prove such a "need"? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live.

"Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court ruling," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He's excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch's lawsuit over New York's law.

I understand Nash and Koch's frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like "metal knuckle knives" and "kung fu stars," fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized, and then go in person to police headquarters.

There they fingerprinted me, demanded reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun, and charged me $430.

I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was "denied."

I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that "special need" to carry a gun. After years of confronting crooks on TV, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life.

Not good enough, said the NYC permit department. They turned me down again.

Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

Scams like that thrive whenever politicians impose too many restrictions on people's freedom. In parts of California, people got gun permits if they donated to a sheriff's campaign.

It's one more reason why Gottlieb is excited about this new Supreme Court case. Court watchers predict his side will win, especially because there are now more originalist judges on the court.

That means it's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Some people say that will be terrible.

"Women are less safe!" says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. "Every vulnerable population—LGBT people, students of color—has more to fear!"

But then why are 58 percent of new gun owners Blacks, and 40 percent women?

"An awful lot of women bought a firearm to protect themselves and feel a whole lot safer!" says Gottlieb. "Eight hundred thousand times a year, a person uses a firearm to protect themselves. If you call 911, the police usually get there after the crime is over.

Over the last decades, most states liberalized their gun laws. More allow concealed carry. Gun control advocates predicted that would lead to an epidemic of shootings.

The opposite happened. As concealed carry was legalized, violent crime went down. Especially telling, crime dropped in each state right after the law was changed.

Gottlieb says that's because "an armed society is a polite society."

As a reporter who attended only liberal schools and worked in liberal newsrooms, I'd been taught that more guns means more violence. Even after interviewing violent criminals in prison and hearing many say that what they feared most was "not the police" but that the person being robbed "might be armed," I still believed that more guns meant more crime.

Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

More guns really does mean less crime.

Rep. Claudia Tenney leads 168 House Republicans in bid to overturn NY gun law

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-New Hartford, wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York's law that bans firearm owners from carrying concealed guns outside of the home. Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

By Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

Washington – Rep. Claudia Tenney is leading a group of 168 House Republicans who are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 110-year-old New York state gun law.

Tenney and her GOP colleagues said today they plan to file a legal brief supporting the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association’s challenge to New York’s law that strictly limits who can carry a gun outside of the home.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear an appeal to a lower court ruling that upheld New York’s law. It marks the first time in more than a decade that the nation’s top court will decide a major Second Amendment case.

Banning America's Rifle: An Assault on the Second Amendment?

This is a very long but very informative article on the AR-15 rifle.  If you are not an accomplished user of the AR-15 rifle we highly recommend this article for you~

"The AR-15 rifle has aptly been called “America’s Rifle.” It is the most popular rifle in the United States, owned and used by millions of law-abiding citizens. Does prohibiting it infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

This article begins with an examination of the meanings of term “assault weapon,” features that some lawmakers and activists have claimed define such weapons, and the rarity of their use in crime. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the Second Amendment, which protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes, precludes bans on such firearms. After that, it examines the text, history, and tradition of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to show that the right keeps pace with and continues to exist as technological improvements are made to firearms. It demonstrates how judicial decisions upholding laws that ban these commonly possessed firearms conflict with and undermine the right. It ends with a challenge to judges and litigants to take the Second Amendment seriously."

Read the complete article here:  https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/banning-america-s-rifle-an-assault-on-the-second-amendment?fbclid=IwAR1yhe9dFaviXmZCbT7KN78M0jmJ-vd2BnjrmEhZkTqXtM4JyaYdB5TP70A

Schuyler Co. Govt Opposes New NYS Gun Control Bill

SCHUYLER COUNTY, N.Y. (WENY)- A new gun law may be in the works for New York State and one local government is calling on Governor Cuomo to veto it.

The legislation if approved by the Governor would allow anyone that's a victim of gun violence to sue the company that made the gun.

The Schuyler County attorney Steve Getman helped write a letter on behalf of the County Legislature in hopes of persuading Governor Cuomo to *not* sign it into law.

"To our knowledge, he has not yet signed the bill which is why Schuyler County and I believe and a number of other counties are asking him to veto it,” Getman said.

Lawmakers in Albany recently passed a bill intended to allow civil lawsuits can be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers. Supporters say it will help cut down on gun violence by holding companies legally accountable.

In response to the bill advancing in Albany, the Schuyler County Legislature voted unanimously to send the letter to Governor Cuomo urging him to veto the law.  Getman says the County Legislature opposes the proposal because a criminal who uses a gun has no connection to the business that made or sold that gun.

"It would be like declaring drunk driving a public nuisance and then allowing people to sue the local car dealer whenever anybody misuses a motor vehicle in a drunk driving accident,” Getman said.

Getman explains this new bill doesn't only apply to big gun businesses. It also will affect small businesses.

"It can apply to anybody who sells any kind of firearm. Including a mom-and-pop shop in your local neighborhood or anybody that sells magazines or accessories,” Getman said.

The bill requires gun manufacturers to prevent their guns from falling into the hands of criminals. However, the process to do exactly that remains vague and unclear. Instead, Getman believes we should focus on other issues to combat gun violence like the state's current bail reform.

"Accused criminals are being arrested and being returned to the streets in hours and sometimes turning around and committing new crimes,” Getman said.

A large gun manufacturer with connections to Upstate New York is also speaking out about the proposal. Remington Arms has a plant in Herkimer County. The company says in part if this bill becomes law any business dealing with firearms will abandon the Empire State to avoid a tidal wave of lawsuits and new regulation.

Moving forward, the bill is awaiting a vote in the assembly before it heads to Governor Cuomo's desk.

The Remington Model 11 Sportsman In World War II  (Made in Ilion, NY)

Plain, utilitarian, unadorned—those are the words typically associated with standard military-issued firearms of World War II. While some individuals chose to carry more elaborate guns, like the famous ivory-handled sidearms of General George Patton, your average G.I. carried firearms free from unnecessary factory embellishments that would only add to the time and expense during manufacturing. Even functional decorative work, like checkering, is often absent from military guns, despite the undeniable benefit that a firm grip would provide in the mud and blood of combat.

That isn’t to say that such mass-produced firearms can’t be works of industrial art in their own right, but the primary purpose was not aesthetic. On the other end of the spectrum, sporting arms have historically been available with finely wrought embellishments on the wood and metal for the discerning customer willing to pay the extra expense required for the skilled labor needed for the work. On the metal, these extra details often centered around the type of game that the user of the firearm would be likely to take, be it a magnificently antlered stag engraved on a rifle or birds and rabbits on a shotgun. 

A Photo of the author's U.S. Ordnance marked Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

While the more elaborate guns were aimed at a wealthy clientele able to pay a significant surcharge for the work, even the common man could obtain a moderately embellished firearm at a fair price. One example of a firearm that saw widespread usage in the hands of average hunters is the Remington Model 11 and its variant, “The Sportsman." Introduced in 1905 as a licensed copy of Browning’s Auto-5, the Remington Model 11 was commercially successful and provided hunters with a relatively reliable semi-automatic shotgun to compete with the numerous well regarded pump actions available at the time. 

The Model 11 and Sportsman are quite similar to one another, with the most notable difference being capacity. The Model 11 holds 4+1, while the Sportsman only fits 2+1 to comply with hunting restrictions in certain states. Additionally, there are slight dimensional changes to the fore-end, and a different cap tops the fore-end of each variant.

The "game scene" roll mark on the right side of the author's Model 11 Sportsman, a pheasant walking through brush.

As World War II loomed, both came standard with a “game scene” roll stamped on either side of the receiver—a duck in flight over a marshland on the left, and a pheasant walking through the grass on the right. Since these are both animals the shotguns would likely encounter during their service as sporting arms, such marks are fitting, but totally incongruous with standard service markings of plain-Jane military firearm, right? 

Normal government contracting standards were thrown out the window after the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Overnight, the nation found itself at war, and in desperate need of arms to support the war effort. Weapons were not only needed for overseas service, but also for training new recruits, and conducting guard duty at all manner of manufacturing plants and other facilities that suddenly found themselves indispensable to the cause of victory. 

The "game scene" roll mark on the left side, a duck in flight over a marshland.

Due to this, the government, in the form of the newly established War Production Board, took dramatic action to ensure that enough weapons would be available for defense use. The first, Limitation Order, No. L-55, issued on Feb. 23, 1942 identified that “national defense requirements have created a shortage of shotguns for plant patrol and other local guard duties” and that it was “expected that Government orders for large numbers of 12-ga. shotguns will be placed.”  

To address those issues, it ordered all manufacturers engaged in the production of shotguns to convert all facilities capable of making 12-ga. shotguns to that purpose. This didn’t just include traditional “Trench Gun” platforms like the Winchester Model 1897 or Model 12, but also all “single barrel, double barrel, repeating, riot, pump and any other type of shotgun of any gauge whatsoever.”

The author's U.S. Ordnance marked Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

Additionally, any machine or equipment that could be used for assembling or manufacturing a 12-ga. shotgun could not be used for making a shotgun of any other gauge, and the allowable production of shotguns of other gauges was severely restricted. Finally, manufacturers were prohibited from selling, delivering, shipping, transferring or otherwise disposing of any 12-ga. shotgun unless it was transferred to the federal government, state or local governments, sent via Lend-Lease or sold via agreement to specified allied countries. 

The War Production Board doubled down only four days later when on February 27, 1942 it issued limitation Order No L-60. This order expanded the stated shortage to include “pistols, rifles and shotguns for use in police work, plant patrol and other local guard duties” and increased the scope of the restriction on sales. Now no person, expect manufacturers, could sell, lease, trade, lend, deliver, ship, transfer or otherwise dispose of any new pistol, rifle or shotgun unless it was to the excepted parties from L-55.

An aerial gunnery trainee posing with a long-barreled Remington Model 11 fixed with a Cutt's compensator, raised aerial sights, and a chassis that simulates an aircraft machine gun mount.

This was also the case if an order was already in transit to the destination or an order had already been placed by an individual with a high “preference rating”. Furthermore, all “dealers, jobbers, wholesalers and distributors” were required to furnish a complete inventory of their rifles, pistols and shotguns to the War Production Board within 45 days. Notably absent from the restrictions were used firearms, with newspapers like the Sycamore, Ill. True Republican shrewdly noting that, because of this, “their value will probably boom.” 

The order was explained as a temporary expedient that was necessary to determine the arms requirements for the armed forces and defense production use, and as such the order was narrowed after three months to only apply to “defense rifles, defense pistols and defense shotguns.” The category of defense rifles included any rifle chambered in .30-’06 Sprg., and a selection of .22 cal. rifles deemed suitable for training use. Defense pistols were defined as any .22 cal. H&R “Sportsman” Model target revolvers, and all pistols manufactured by Colt, Smith and Wesson or High Standard.

Two Remington Model 11 shotguns mounted into a mock-up twin dorsal turret. This is meant to simulate the dorsal turrets used on many American medium and heavy bombers during World War II, including the B-17 and B-24. The use of 12-ga. shotguns instead of .50-cal AN/M2 machine guns also eliminated the worry of errant rounds in the air during training.

Finally, defense shotguns were all 12-ga., and any semi-automatic or pump-action 16-ga. Again, sales of these outside of the U.S. Government were prohibited with only a few narrow exceptions. One of those, oddly enough, allowed for the sale of designated-defense rifles or shotguns if the net cost to the seller was greater than $72.50 or $45 respectively ($1,169.85 and $726.11 in modern money). 

Since the standard Remington auto-loading shotguns fell below that threshold, they were destined for near-exclusive sales to government purchasers. The Sportsman and Model 11 saw their most widespread service far from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. The long-barreled variants, sometimes topped with a Cutt’s Compensator, were used for training aerial gunners and anti-aircraft personnel on the concepts of lead and follow-through against moving targets.

A Remington Model 11 set up on an aerial training mount in the bed of a truck. The truck would drive down a course as the trainee engaged targets.

And they weren’t only used for traditional style clay shooting – shotguns were also fixed into contraptions designed to imitate the gun mounts that the aircrew would later use in combat. This gave the students the ability to practice traversing an off-the-shoulder firearm, familiarize themselves with the sight and trigger setups and gain valuable experience—all without having to worry about the enormous safety zones that would be created by firing a .50-cal. machine gun into the air.

And the training wasn’t just stationary, with some students learning to engage moving clays while they were carried along on the back of trucks, playing the part of American bomber aircraft. The “riot gun” variants, with 20” barrels, were mostly destined for another purpose—guard duty. While some certainly made it into front-line combat, the majority of these guns lived a somewhat less exciting—but no less important—life back from the front.

A MP standing guard with a Remington Model 11 in hand.

This ranged from stateside industry protection, to guarding POWs and other prisoners both stateside and abroad. Shotguns of all types were often found in the hands of the newly formed Military Police Corps, officially established in 1941, who valued the shotgun as a tool well suited to managing prisoners and guarding rear areas where errant rifle shots might prove unnecessarily dangerous. One reason we never saw a “Trench Gun” style semi-automatic shotgun during the war may have been because of how the Model 11 operates.
It features a recoiling barrel that would make it largely incompatible with the easy mounting of a bayonet or heat shield. While other recoil operated weapons, such as the M1941 Johnson rifle, overcame this by having a small and lightweight bayonet that would reciprocate with the barrel, it was apparently never deemed important enough to design and field such a system for a long-recoil shotgun like the Remingtons. The pictured Remington Sportsman is one such example of a shotgun originally destined for civilian use that was pressed into service in the months following America’s entry into World War II.

The U.S. Ordnance and other markings on the barrel of the author's Remington Model 11 Sportsman.

It bears a high-polish blued finish, and is neatly roll-stamped with the standard game scenes across either side of the receiver. In contrast to these large embellishments, the US property markings are rather small. On the stock is a faint “Ordnance Wheel” featuring a flaming bomb atop two crossed-cannons and circled by a gunner’s belt. Most also bear an F.J.A. cartouche for Colonel Frank J. Atwood, with a smaller number having an earlier R.L.B. mark instead, for Colonel Roy L. Bowlin.
The metal is marked in two separate places, the left front of the receiver and the top rear of the barrel. Both locations feature a stamped “U.S.” and an Ordnance Flaming Bomb." The standard civilian markings are left in place, including patent information and choke information. All barrels used as riot guns, on both the Sportsman and Model 11, will be marked with “CYLINDER BORE” or “CYL” on the left rear of the barrel ,including a small number where an original choke marking was lined out at the factory, with the cylinder bore status being stamped in its place.

Interestingly, throughout wartime production, Remington retained the 2+1 capacity of The Sportsman even though they were no longer being made with hunting laws in mind, and it wouldn’t have taken much to increase capacity to the 4+1 as found on the Model 11. Perhaps for this reason, or maybe due to existing production capacity, Sportsman riot shotguns are scarcer than their Model 11 riot counterparts. As the war pressed on, existing stocks of pre-war parts quickly dried up.

Newly manufactured parts did away with some of the “frivolous” features found on civilian sporting arms. The duck and pheasant were quick to go, replaced by a plain and smooth-sided receivers. The high polish finish was also replaced with a low-luster blue, and Remington saw fit to prominently stamp such guns with “Military Finish”, presumably in order to indicate to anyone who may come across one at a later date that their civilian shotguns were made to a higher aesthetic standard.

An advertisement from World War II triumphing the use of 12-ga. ammunition used to help train gunners.

Even the checkering on the forearm and buttstock were dropped, despite them actually providing a tangible benefit in combat scenarios. On May 5, 1945, three days before the official German surrender, the War Production Board started the long process of returning to normal by revoking Limitation Order L-55, and releasing their strict control over the types of shotguns that manufacturers could produce.
In late August, after the Japanese war machine lay broken and ready to surrender, the WPB revoked the sections of L-60 relating to revolvers and shotguns. The American sporting shotgun industry was once again free to design, market, produce, and sell its products as it saw fit, and had ready customers in the form of returning G.I.s interested in the shooting sports. The Model 11 and “The Sportsman” are the least expensive U.S. WW2 martial shotguns available on the market today.
With almost 60,000 of all types purchased by the military they don’t have quite the same mystique surrounding them as the more famous “Trench Shotguns”, but they undeniably pulled their weight in a wide variety of roles across the globe during World War II. A collector looking for a military shotgun with a little bit of sporting flair can do a lot worse than an old Sportsman!

• Remington-Rand M1911: I Have This Old Gun
• Video—ARTV: Remington 200, Part 2
• Tonight on American Rifleman TV: The Men and Guns of the Pacific, Part 3; Colt Competition Pistol
• The Keefe Report: Remington Model 11
• Video—ARTV: Remington 200, Part 1

US judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Posted: JUN 5, 2021 / 06:25 AM CDT | Updated: JUN 6, 2021 / 06:59 AM CDT  The Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

That comparison “completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban “has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” his ruling said.

States across the country relaxing gun ownership restrictions 

Despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

“This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes,” the ruling said. “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

“In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle,” he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

“The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,” the state argued, because the weapons can still be used — just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez’s 2017 ruling against the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez’s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.

"Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance."  by Don Smith

To the Editor (Times of Wayne County):

Gun violence is not a “public health crisis” requiring bans and liability insurance.

Consider these major causes of deaths and their percent of total deaths in 2019: 

(1) Heart Disease: 635,260; 23.1%;   (2) Cancer: 598,038; 21.7%;   (3) Accidents (unintentional): 161,374; 5.9%; ..... (12) Gun Violence: 38,730; 1.4% 

Some seek a ban on the commonly used modern sporting rifle or AR-15, albeit cosmetically similar to a military rifle, yet factually a semi-automatic rifle. Fully automatic firearms are prohibited from citizen ownership by the Firearms Act of 1968. FBI statistics show AR-15s to be used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes. 

Finally, though well intentioned, proposals for gun liability insurance misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance.  It is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events, “...not intentional behavior such as criminal acts...”, according to Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association. This applies to guns, cars or any instrument that is used to deliberately harm a person. 

Consider this statement by State Senator Pam Helming: “It is time to stop playing politics and pass legislation that is clearly written, has been vetted by the public, and will truly protect our citizens without stripping the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford reminds us: “Insurance is not needed to exercise any other Constitutional right”.

Don Smith, Chairman

Wayne County S.C.O.P.E.
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Times of Wayne County
P.O. Box 608
Macedon, NY 14502

Members!  Save the Date!  October 16, 2021

"America will never forget their sacrifices"

On May 29, 2004, America dedicated the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., which pays tribute to all Americans who served in history's most terrible war. Inscribed near a wall honoring those who gave their lives in World War II is a simple statement from Harry S. Truman: "Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.

At this time of year, when Americans kick off their summers with holiday weekend vacations and barbecues, it is good to pause and remember our countrymen who have answered the call to serve, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Conflict: Revolutionary War (1775-1783)

U.S. Military Deaths: 25,000

Conflict: War of 1812 (1812-1815)

U.S. Military Deaths: 20,000

Conflict: Mexican War (1846-1848)

U.S. Military Deaths: 13,300

Conflict: Civil War (1861-1865)

U.S. Military Deaths: Union 360,000 | Confederate 260,000

Conflict: Spanish-American War (1898)

U.S. Military Deaths: 2,500

Conflict: World War I (1917-1918)

U.S. Military Deaths: 116,500

Conflict: World War II (1941-1945)

U.S. Military Deaths: 405,400

Conflict: Korean War (1950-1953)

U.S. Military Deaths: 36,600

Conflict: Vietnam War (1964-1973)

U.S. Military Deaths: 58,200

Conflict: Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)

U.S. Military Deaths: 380

Conflict: Afghanistan (2001- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 1,000**

Conflict: Iraq War (2003- )

U.S. Military Deaths: 4,400**

*Includes battlefield and other deaths, such as soldiers who died of disease. Because official records may be incomplete,

especially prior to World War I, military death figures are estimates.

**Approximate military deaths as of June 1, 2010.

Anti-Gun Mayor Says She's The Victim After Husband Busted On Drug, Gun Charges  by Cam Edwards | May 21, 2021

What’s an anti-gun mayor supposed to say when police raid her home and find illegally possessed firearms and illicit drugs inside? In the case of Rochester, New York mayor Lovely Warren, the answer is to claim that you’re the victim of a political investigation and an attempt to derail your re-election campaign.

“I find the timing of yesterday’s events, three weeks before early voting  starts, to be highly suspicious,” Warren said, in her speech, which was posted by Rochester First.

“There’s nothing implicating me in these charges today, because I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t spoken to Tim since his arrest, and I’m not standing here to defend him.”

“Tim” is Timothy Granison, Warren’s husband and the alleged owner of an unregistered handgun discovered in the couple’s home earlier this week (a modern sporting rifle was found as well, though so far police haven’t said if was registered with the state as required under New York’s SAFE Act set of gun control laws). Warren’s correct in noting that she’s not currently facing charges in connection with the drug investigation, though the mayor is facing felony charges of her own in a case involving alleged violations of the state’s campaign financing laws.

Still, it stretches credulity to believe that Warren would have had no idea of her husband’s alleged activity. If the mayor can’t even keep felons from keeping drugs and guns in her home (Granison was convicted of felony robbery in 1997, when he was 18), can she really be trusted to keep drug dealers and gun traffickers out of the city she manages?

Rather than address that obvious question, Warren instead chose to pin the blame on the prosecutor in her first public comments after her husband’s arrest, accusing Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley of targeting her husband in an attempt to help Warren’s opponent in the mayoral race. Dooley, however, had already thrown cold water on that idea while announcing the arrest of Granison and six other accused drug dealers on Thursday.

In her remarks to reporters, Doorley took pains to dismiss any suggestion that the raid on Warren’s home and the arrest of her husband were motivated by politics. She explained that Granison only became a suspect at some point into the seven-month probe.

“I’m sure there are going to be people out there who think that this is politically motivated. It was not,” Doorley said. “Timothy Granison was not the original target of this wire investigation.

“Approximately seven months I met with members of law enforcement, we had a target, we began to go up on phones, as we do with a wiretap investigations,” she went on. “During the course of the investigation, Timothy Granison became apparent to us as being a plyer in this narcotics ring, and it was at this point that we followed the evidence. Simple as that.”

While the outcome of Granison’s criminal case is unclear (he’s pleaded not guilty to the felony charges), one thing is certain: next Tuesday’s mayoral debate between Lovely Warren and challenger Malik Evans, a Rochester city council member, should be one for the ages. Thankfully, it’ll be streamed online, so even if you don’t live in the Rochester area you’ll be able to tune in for what will be some must-see TV.