SCOPE NY

Articles

Complete list of Wayne County SCOPE's Articles

Click on an article header below to see the entire article.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next >  Last >> 
  • 05/26/2022 9:34 PM | Anonymous


    The political scene has been replete for months, if not years, with continuous attacks on both sides of the aisle as to the need to reduce gun violence.  The fact that federal laws are already strong on background checks and transfer guidelines has done little to diminish criticism.  

    Some states, including New York in 2019, have passed so-called “Red Flag” laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).  The recent mass shooting in Buffalo occurred despite it.  This leaves critics of guns little to focus on other than more gun control especially the inclusion of increased background checks.  The House of Representatives passed in March 2021 H.R. 8.  This bill established new background requirements for firearm transfers between private parties ( i.e. unlicensed individuals).

    This article attempts to educate the reader as to the facts in the bill as well as it’s failures.  As indicated “The bottom line is that the bill represents gun control measures that encroach on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens and do little to reduce gun violence.


    H. R. 8 – Facts and Failures

    2.13.22

    This morning, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee plan to markup H.R. 8, the ‘Bipartisan Background Checks Act.’ However, Democrats have shown little interest in incorporating conservative perspectives into their so-called ‘bipartisan’ bill. At a hearing on H.R. 8 last week, Democrats denied Whip Scalise the opportunity to testify as a member witness about his experience as a survivor of gun violence and his strong support for our Second Amendment rights.

    Unfortunately, H.R. 8’s claim to bipartisanship isn’t the only sham part of the bill. The bottom line is that the bill represents gun control measures that encroach on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens and do little to reduce gun violence.

    H.R. 8 shortfalls (courtesy of the House Judiciary Committee)

    Current federal laws are already strong on background checks and transfer guidelines. 

    Federal law already prohibits:

    Transferring a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms.

    Individuals from from transferring a handgun across state lines to someone without a firearms license.

    Anyone from acquiring firearms on behalf of another person who is prohibited from possessing firearms.

    Anyone from providing a handgun to a juvenile.

    Dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to individuals under the age of 18.

    The vast majority of firearm transfers at gun shows are conducted by federal firearms licensees performing a NICS background check.

    H.R. 8 would not have stopped any of these mass shootings:

    • Columbine High School, Columbine, CO – April 20, 1999
    • Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA – April 16, 2007
    • Fort Hood, TX – November 5, 2009
    • Tuscon, AZ – January 8, 2011
    • Sandy Hook Elementary, Newtown, CT – December 14, 2012
    • Aurora, CO – July 20, 2012
    • Navy Yard, Washington, DC – September 16, 2013
    • Emanuel AME Church, Charleston, SC – June 17, 2015
    • San Bernardino, CA – December 2, 2015
    • Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, FL – June 12, 2016
    • Las Vegas, NV – October 1, 2017
    • First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, TX – November 5, 2017
    • Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, FL – February 14, 2018

    H.R. 8’s background check requirement on firearm transfers criminalizes the actions of honest, law-abiding citizens, including the following scenarios:

    Tim is struggling with suicidal thoughts. He asks a close friend to safekeep his guns while he seeks help. Under H.R. 8, Tim potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

    Shannon is a victim of violent domestic abuse. Her ex-husband and abuser is being released from prison and Shannon fears for her life. Shannon’s neighbor, Scott, lends her a firearm for self-defense. Under H.R. 8, Scott potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

    Joe and Bill have been hunting together for 40 years. This year, Joe is sick and can’t make the trip, but Bill asks if he can borrow Joe’s deer rifle. Joe lends the rifle to Bill the weekend before the trip, but Bill can’t return it immediately once the trip is over. Under H.R. 8, Joe potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

    Ted’s uncle wants to go to the shooting range. Ted knows he’s allowed to transfer a firearm to an aunt or uncle, so he agrees to lend him his rifle. When Ted’s cousin shows up at the door on his way to meet Ted’s uncle at the shooting range, Ted gives him the rifle. Under H.R. 8, while aunts and uncles are exempted from transfer restrictions, cousins arbitrarily are not, and Ted now potentially faces up to one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

    Highlights from Whip. Scalise’s prepared, and undelivered, testimony:

    “As someone who experienced gun violence, I do not want anyone else to go through that trauma. However, it is also important to me that we be honest with ourselves and the American people about what will — or won’t — actually prevent these tragedies.”

    “The new gun control restrictions currently being considered by the Democratic majority in H.R. 8 would not have prevented my shooting.”   

    “Based on similar gun control measures in states like California, H.R. 8 would not deter a criminal from engaging in criminal activity, and it won’t decrease gun crime. Instead, it only succeeds in limiting the ways that law-abiding citizens could exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

    “Every single month in America, law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits defend themselves and others against criminals who have guns.”

    “Instead of making it harder for citizens to defend themselves until law enforcement arrives, Congress should consider legislation like H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act”

    “I firmly believe we must never forget, nor minimize, the importance of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”

    “If our goal is to reduce gun violence, then we should focus on penalizing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.”


  • 04/23/2022 1:58 PM | Anonymous

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — 

    California state lawmakers advanced a measure Tuesday that would make it easier to skirt a federal law in order to sue gun makers, legislation that opponents say is ultimately aimed at driving manufacturers out of business.

    A different committee was poised to advance a bill targeting so-called ghost guns, while a third committee approved a bill requiring firearm dealers to install digital video surveillance systems.

    They are among several bills that gained momentum from recent mass shootings, including what police now say was a gang battle that earlier this month killed six people and wounded 12 others just blocks from the state Capitol. 

    Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco said his legislation would make it easier to sue gun makers or dealers for liability in shootings that cause deaths or injuries. That could include those who sell ghost gun kits whose parts lack serial numbers.

    Federal law blocks most of those types of lawsuits against the gun industry. But the U.S law does permit some types of liability lawsuits, including when gun makers break state or local laws regarding the sale and marketing of their products. Last year, New York approved a first-in-the-nation law declaring such violations a “public nuisance,” opening up gun makers to lawsuits, though the law has been challenged in court by manufacturers.

    California already has some of the nation’s toughest firearm restrictions.

    Among what legislative analysts count as 107 existing California gun laws is a 10-day waiting period, background checks for buying guns and ammunition, restrictions on types of guns including assault-style weapons, and a 10-bullet limit on ammunition magazines.

    “We pride ourselves on having fairly strict gun control laws,” Ting said. “We have done better than other states, but still not good enough.”

    Gun control advocates said they have previously been stymied by the federal law when it comes to punishing manufacturers or dealers who are irresponsible or negligent in selling or advertising firearms.

    Ting’s bill would require firearm makers and dealers to “take reasonable precautions” under a “firearm industry standard of conduct” in making and selling their weapons. That can include things such as making sure buyers are taught how to safely store and use the weapon, he said.

    They also would be barred from making or distributing guns that are “likely to create a substantial and unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” under the bill co-sponsored by the Brady Campaign and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

    Starting in July 2023, violators could be sued by the attorney general, city or county attorneys, or anyone who suffered harm. They also could be sued for alleged violations of other laws, including false advertising, unfair competition or deceptive acts or practices.

    “We think it provides a really good opportunity to put the power back in the hands of individuals who are the individual victims of gun violence,” Ting said. “And really, what we hope is by holding this industry accountable that they will be much more thoughtful about how they sell their weapons.”

    The National Rifle Assn. said the bill’s real intent is “to torment the firearms industry through costly litigation in the widest array of circumstances.”

    The bill is written so broadly that “almost anyone could bring civil action against the firearm industry,” said the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. “It is an attack on the lawful commerce of firearms with an intent to limit the availability of firearms.”

    Roy Griffith, the California group’s legislative director, said the proposal is “clearly in direct conflict with federal law.” 

    He equated it to allowing lawsuits against carmakers for drunk driving deaths.

    “This industry gets protection that no other industry in the United States gets,” Ting responded. “Guns are not cars. The purpose of guns is to harm another individual.” 

    The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a 7-2 vote.

    A different Assembly committee was poised to advance a bill aimed at ghost guns, which law enforcement agencies say have become more common in recent years. The U.S. Department of Justice reported nearly 20,000 were recovered nationwide last year, nearly double the number seized in 2020.

    The move comes days after President Biden highlighted the Justice Department’s work to finalize new regulations to crack down on ghost guns, which are privately made firearms without serial numbers. 

    “Anyone with a credit card and skills to build Ikea furniture, and some spare time, can make the same gun that took the lives of two of my classmates and changed mine forever,” testified Mia Tretta, who was shot in Santa Clarita during a 2019 attack at Saugus High School, where she is now a junior. She also spoke at Biden’s announcement. 

    California law already requires anyone building a weapon to apply to the state Department of Justice for a serial number to be inscribed on the firearm. 

    Assemblyman Mike Gipson’s bill would instead block the sale of unfinished gun parts until they are regulated by the federal government. The measure would take effect Jan. 1 and give Californians who have weapons without serial numbers six months to register them and add the numbers.

    Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said the emphasis on ghost guns is overblown.

    “Privately made firearms have become an unfortunate scapegoat,” he said, citing statistics by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showing they are used in less than 1% of homicides. “There is simply no evidence that they are the cause for the surge in violent crime.”

  • 03/24/2022 11:46 PM | Anonymous

    NEW McLAUGHLIN POLL SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR 2A AFTER UKRAINE INVASION

    BELLEVUE, WA – A new survey by the nationally-recognized polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates shows strong public support for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The Second Amendment Foundation commissioned survey said 66.1 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement posed by the McLaughlin poll stating, “When you see what is going on with Vladimir Putin and Russia’s military invasion of the Ukraine, it is more important than ever for Americans to defend their 2nd Amendment Constitutional freedoms for law-abiding citizens to continue to have the right to own guns for their personal protection.” Only 25.7 percent disagree, and only 8.2 percent had no opinion. The survey may be read here.

    “This should send a message to the Biden administration that Americans by a large majority fully understand the Second Amendment is about defending liberty and not about duck or deer hunting,” said Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president. “The new McLaughlin data shows how out-of-touch Biden and his fellow Democrats are about the right to keep and bear arms.”

    “Unfortunately,” veteran pollster Jim McLaughlin observed, “Americans are seeing first hand through Vladimir Putin’s brutal, military invasion of the Ukraine the importance of our cherished Second Amendment rights. The brave Ukrainian citizens have been able to thwart Putin’s military aggression by arming themselves against the Russian invaders. Americans clearly associate the importance of their Second Amendment rights with maintaining a safe, free and democratic nation.”

    Biden came into office 14 months ago with an ambitious gun control agenda that dramatically stalled after the Senate debacle regarding his nomination of former ATF agent-turned-gun-control-advocate David Chipman to head the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    SAF commissioned the McLaughlin survey, which was conducted among 1,000 likely voters across the country March 17-22. McLaughlin’s survey also revealed more people oppose bans on semi-automatic rifles and 9mm pistols than support them.

    “After what we’ve seen on the nightly news from Ukraine, Americans are more protective of their constitutional rights than ever,” Gottlieb said.


  • 03/02/2022 10:48 PM | Anonymous

    BELLEVUE, WA – While Joe Biden began his State of the Union speech properly condemning Russia’s undeclared war on Ukraine, he used his bully pulpit to continue his own lifelong war on gun owners and the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

    “Biden’s remarks about gun control and his already-discredited claim about gun manufacturers being immune from lawsuits simply reinforced his reputation as a career gun prohibitionist who never let facts get in the way of a flippant falsehood,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “His claim that bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and original capacity magazines are ‘proven measures’ to reduce violent crime is demonstrably untrue. Just look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

    “And we should note these are the same kinds of guns and magazines Ukrainian citizens are using to defend their freedom from a savage enemy bent on killing innocent civilians including women and children,” he stated. 

    “His declaration that gun manufacturing is the only industry in America that can’t be sued has been fully discredited,” Gottlieb continued. “It ranks right up there with Biden’s bogus claim that people couldn’t own cannons when the Second Amendment was written. Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler gave Biden four ‘Pinocchios’ for repeating that tall tale, which is tantamount to calling the president a habitual liar.

    “Perhaps Biden’s biggest fib of the night came when he said his proposals don’t infringe on the Second Amendment, and that they save lives,” he observed. “Crusading to disarm law-abiding citizens hasn’t saved a single life in this country. Banning commonly-owned firearms definitely violates the Constitution, and Biden knows it.

    “Biden’s remark about deer and Kevlar vests was intended to perpetuate the myth that the Second Amendment is about hunting,” Gottlieb stated. “If he honestly believes the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution just so we can head to a duck blind, he needs remedial courses on U.S. history and constitutional law.

    “There was a time in the distant past when people forgave Joe Biden for his gaffes and fabrications, but his crusade against gun owners and the firearms industry has clearly become an obsession for which he no longer gets a pass. He wants Nancy Pelosi and Capitol Hill Democrats to gut the Second Amendment, and by default, the entire Bill of Rights. That cannot be allowed.”


  • 02/11/2022 8:21 AM | Anonymous
    • Wayne County Members Meeting Minutes
      Marion American Legion Post 1430
      4141 Witherden Rd. Marion, NY 14505
      February 9, 2022

      1. Sheriff Rob Milby opened the meeting at 7:05pm with the Pledge of Allegiance.

      2. The secretary was absent due to covid concerns at his home and the January Minutes were unavailable.

      3. Treasurer’s Report was given by treasurer Mark Coleman. One new member’s dues was sent to State SCOPE. A check in the amount of $125 was received as a donation to Wayne County SCOPE by the Williamson Conservation and Sportsmen’s Club. 

      4. It was announced that State SCOPE has extended the drawing date for a 243 Henry rifle to April 30 at the State members meeting. Treasurer Mark Coleman is in chargeof this fundraiser.  All funds will remain with the individual chapters, so it is important for members to participate by selling as many tickets as possible.  State SCOPE has donated the rifle.  It was in last year’s State raffle, but the winner chose cash instead. 

      5. Chairman Don Smith gave a legislative report which initiated several questions and comments. The report included:

    • ·      NYSRPA v. Bruen
    • ·      Federal gun-control bills introduced this year
    • ·      State gun-control bills introduced this year
    • 6. Wayne County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ken Miller presented an update on redistricting in New York State. It focused on:

    • ·      Our 24th Congressional District and the possibly of a new Congressman in Chris Jacobs. John Katko is retiring.
    • ·      Our 54th State Senate District with Senator Pam Helming.
    • ·      Our 130th State Assembly District with Assemblyman Brian Manktelow. 

    7. Sheriff Rob Milby introduced his choice for undersheriff, Tammy Ryndock, with whom he has been associated for several years in the Wayne County Sheriff’s office.

    8. Bob Brannan presented Milby and Ryndock with a plaque containing the “Policeman” speech given by the late Paul Harvey on talk radio nearly 40 years ago. Mr. Harvey's father inspired this speech as he was a police officer who was shot and killed while doing what police officers do every day.

    9. The chairman announced election of officers will occur at the March 9 members meeting.  A request was made for new Chapter Board and Committee members.

    10. Vice-Chairman Dave Colburn encouraged members to visit our SCOPE website while answering questions and explaining different aspects of it. 

    11. The meeting was closed at 8:25pm. The next members meeting will be March 9.

    DONATE HERE

     Donate Here    


  • 01/22/2022 6:15 PM | Anonymous


    At Townhall: As Gun

    Sales Soared, the

    Number of Violent

    Crimes Committed

    with Guns

    Plummeted

    Jan 14, 2022 | op-ed

    gun sales op-ed

    Rachel Morgan and Alexandra Thompson, “Criminal Victimization, 2020,” Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, October 2021.

    Dr. John Lott has a new piece at Townhall on the claims about increased gun sales causing an increase in violent crime.

    With violent crime soaring over the last two years, Americans want a solution. Over and over, President Joe Biden and gun control advocates frame violent crime as a gun problem. Relying on public health researchers, articles such as this one in the Atlantic and in local news stories this week point to increasing gun sales as the cause. But reported gun crimes fell in 2020, so the  writers ignore the obvious explanation for rising crime, that law enforcement isn’t being allowed to do its job.

    Gun sales increased dramatically in 2020 before receding some in 2021. Background checks on gun sales soared from 12.4 million in 2019 to 20.3 million in 2020 and declining back to 17.6 million in 2021. Meanwhile, murder and aggravated assaults rose in 2020. In 2020, they increased double-digit rates (29% for murder and 12% for aggravated assaults).

    To many, the connection seems obvious. Gun sales increased, and murder and aggravated assaults rose, though robberies fell.

    But what the media ignores is that the number of violent gun crimes dropped dramatically in 2020. Last October, the US Department of Justice released a study showing victims reported 212,470 gun crimes to police in 2020, a drop of 27% from the 290,790 in 2019. The share of violent crimes committed with guns also fell – by over 30%.

    Of course, victims don’t report all crimes to the police. To get a handle on that, the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey interviews about 100,000 Americans each year. That survey also finds that the estimated number of gun crimes also fell by 27%, from 481,950 to 350,460 and that the share of violent crimes involving guns was only 7.7%.

    In 2020, there was a statistically insignificant few percentage point rise in the share of murder committed with guns, but the share of guns used in robberies and aggravated assaults has dropped dramatically.

    All this is consistent with academic research by myself and others showing that when civilians carry guns criminals are less likely to carry them. If a criminal pulls out a gun against an armed victim, he is more likely to be shot.

    Gun ownership didn’t fuel the increase in crime over the last couple of years. Rather, people worried about violent crime and decided to arm themselves for self-protection.

    It’s not hard to find explanations for the increased violence. Many urban areas saw more than half of prison inmates released because of the pandemic, and the releases still continue. Nationwide, there are over 340,000 fewer inmates in jails and prisons in 2021 than in 2019. In many places, police budgets were cut and officers ordered to stand down. New York City cut its police budget by $1 billion

    Prosecutors in many major urban areas have refused to prosecute violent criminals. In October, two rival drug gangs got into a gunfight in Chicago during broad daylight. The fight, caught on video, left one shooter dead and two others wounded. Cook County District Attorney Kim Foxx declined to prosecute any of the gang members, initially explaining they were “mutual combatants.” 

    Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, hardly a right-winger, lashed out at Foxx: “If the bad guys that are out there that are picking up guns and shooting without any regard for the sanctity of life do not believe that there’s accountability for them, the brazenness will not end. It will escalate, it will continue, and our communities will not be safe.”

    Throw in bail reform and some places cutting criminal penalties, and you have a real mess. In Harris County, Texas, criminals released since 2018 on little or no bail (some of them previously charged with murder) have murdered 156 people. In Nevada, Democrat Gov. Steve Sisolak championed a measure gutting the state’s three-strikes law, where criminals convicted of their third felony faced additional prison time. He replaced it with a rule allowing for six or seven felonies before the perpetrator faces additional punishment.

    Lightfoot is right. If you want to reduce crime, criminals must be afraid of being caught and punished. 

    It isn’t rocket science understanding why crime is increasing, and it isn’t the fault of gun owners. Many parts of the country are in dire need of basic law enforcement. But, given how poorly public health researchers have done with their recommendations over the last couple of years, you would hope people would be skeptical of their advice on guns.

    John R. Lott, Jr., “As Gun Sales Soared, the Number of Violent Crimes Committed with Guns Plummeted,” Townhall, January 14, 2022.

    (Visited 450 times, 282 visits today)

    Share this:

    ← On Connecticut’s WATR: Discussing Election IntegrityBiden Judicial nominee has at least two Class A Misdemeanors on his record, repeatedly driving with a suspended driver's license, but he respects the law →

    johnrlott

    0 Comments

    Search by Topic

    ANNUAL REPORT ON NUMBER OF CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITSAssault Weapons Ban CPRC researchPre CPRC research About the CPRCBackground ChecksBloomberg's GroupsConcealed Carry Statistics -- Annual Report

  • 12/29/2021 11:54 PM | Anonymous

    by Alan Korwin, Author

    Gun Laws of America
    January 27, 2010

    Will "Freedom To Carry" replace "Right To Carry"?
    It's moving that way in Texas and elsewhere.

    With state legislative sessions starting nationwide, the right to bear arms is front and center in people's minds and some state legislatures. Arizona has quickly moved a Constitutional Carry bill through both House and Senate committees, with broad support from the public, state organizations and the NRA. We'll know if it is enacted probably by April. 

    The so-called "right-to-carry permit" requires government interference, paperwork, applications, approvals, taxes called "fees," mandatory classes, written tests, shooting tests, plastic-coated permission slips, fingerprinting, photographs, entries into criminal databases and expiration dates for your "rights." That has definitely moved the right to bear arms significantly ahead. Is it time to go further and reach "Freedom To Carry"?

    So-called "right to carry," even with all its baggage, has served us well, insofar as it has destroyed the myth that if good people have guns they'll run around indiscriminately killing each other. It quenched the paranoia that possession of a gun turns you into a homicidal maniac. It put to death the lie that an armed public will look like Dodge City. It ended the nonsense that a concealed weapon will entice you to shoot fellow motorists at stop lights. It wiped out the silliness that innocent armed people in restaurants will shoot slow waiters. Arizona enacted so-called guns in bars (actually, discreetly carried arms in liquor-licensed restaurants with no drinking allowed) in 2009, and all the waiters are still breathing. Right-to-carry showed up the anti-rights gun haters and their compliant media co-conspirators as a pack of lying, deceitful, terrified, irrational, egregious, elitist, hoplophobic enemies of civil rights. 

    Under Freedom To Carry, sometimes called Vermont carry or Alaska-style carry, basically, the government stays out of your face as you exercise your fundamental human and civil right to own and carry property. Arms, by the way, are the only enumerated objects in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed the right to possess. 

    Alaska enacted Freedom To Carry in 2003 and alls well. Texas enacted Freedom To Carry "light" in 2007 as the Motorist Protection Act: there is no government interference with discreetly having a gun anywhere in your premises or your vehicle (including any sort of motor home), and from your premises to your vehicle, an excellent start (you still need a license while out and about on foot, so they're taking it one step at a time, so to speak). Having a firearm, if you're doing nothing wrong, is not a crime. And should not be a crime. What a concept. A woman should be able to put a handgun in her handbag and go about her day without fear of arrest. Montana enacted Freedom To Carry in 1991 for 99.4% of the state (outside city limits). 

    Under the infringement of so-called "reciprocity" schemes (an odious feature of "right-to-carry" plans), your human and civil rights as an American have been reduced to a list of government-approved states for licensees only, when you leave your home state. The 98% of the public that refuses to jump through the hoops, be taxed, get on the criminal database and get "rights" papers is left out in the cold when they travel under the current "reciprocity" model. Enormous police effort that could be going directly toward reducing crime is instead being diverted into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent.

    The biggest argument against government-free Constitutional Carry is that it does away with the required training for a carry license. Training is good, we all agree. But are too many trainers now lined up at this government-made trough to feed? Are they afraid they won't be able to make money like regular entrepreneurs, if government doesn't force people to attend their classes? Do they fit the classic definition of a cartel, a business created and protected by government mandates, with the threat of arrest for anyone who operates outside the constraints? 

    There is also a fear that if people bear arms without the enforced classes, the dumb idiots will kill people out of stupidity -- sort of like the argument the anti-rights people make about guns in general. That's false of course, since less than 2% of the public gets a license and hence the required class -- but half the public has guns. The 50% of the people who have guns without the king's permission slips seem to get along just fine without being forced to take a class under penalty of arrest.

    Here however is the silver lining of Constitutional Carry. With your rights restored, and training provided on a voluntary basis, trainers will be free to offer classes to the general public the way General Mills sells cereal. Everyone should have some. You want some of this? You can expect a burst of advertising and promotion for gun-safety and marksmanship classes once everyone is freed from government constraints. Family classes, discount days, coupons, two-fers, novice-to-advanced programs -- all the exposure you'd expect for any consumer product will start to emerge, as competition (not mandates) drive the market.

    The departure of government from the firearms-training market leaves a vacuum that can and should be filled by ambitious entrepreneurs who see the potential. When people's rights are restored, their undertsanding of the need for competent instruction will bloom, and savvy marketers will help them along. 

    Instead of focusing on a tiny fraction of the public who bows for the permission slip, and leaving everyone else in darkness, we can finally move to school-based education. No student should be able to graduate without a healthy understanding of firearms, their social utility, and a demonstrated ability to safely discharge a firearm at a target. Use the Arizona high-school marksmanship bill as a basis, it's a sizzler: https://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm

    It is so totally American, and replacing the current state of TV-fueled gun ignorance with enlightenment and understanding, accidents will drop, safety will improve, national readiness will skyrocket, and the fear that there won't be enough training opportunities will fall apart as the stale BS it is.

    If you do one thing this season, push for Constitutional Carry in your state. Draft a bill. Introduce a bill. Use our approach in Arizona and seek to simply repeal the unconstitutional obnoxious offensive ban against your civil rights. You're an American. You can do this.

    Call -- don't write -- your local gun-rights chapter, even if you're not a member, you fool. Tell them you would support Freedom To Carry in your state. Tell them you would join (or donate) if they draft a Constitutional Carry law. Get this ball rolling.

  • 12/18/2021 2:20 AM | Anonymous

    Members of the Firearm Industry Launch Battle to Have New York Statute Declared Unconstitutional.

    NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) and a group of fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed a lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court today challenging as unconstitutional a New York law designed to blame the industry for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased.

    Specifically, New York’s “public nuisance” law would subject members of the firearm industry to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state. Today’s lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

    New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress. This law interferes with the sovereignty of other states to make policy choices about how firearms should be sold in their state, subject only to the Second Amendment and federal law.

    The challenged law permits lawsuits by victims of criminal acts and citizens claiming they have been harmed by an alleged public nuisance in New York. It also allows lawsuits by the State and any local government, like the City of New York. Both New York State and the City of New York were part of a wave of similar lawsuits filed over twenty years ago that led to Congress passing the bipartisan PLCAA in 2005.

    The PLCAA codified a bedrock legal principle. Manufacturers and retailers are not responsible for the subsequent criminal misuse or illegal possession of their lawfully sold, non-defective products by remote third parties - criminals - over whom they have no control. Firearm industry members are not legally responsible for illegal shootings any more than a cookware manufacturer is responsible if a criminal misuses a sharp kitchen knife to stab someone.

    “This law is not about making our communities safer but rather, as former Governor Andrew Cuomo once proclaimed, to impose on the firearm industry a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ Today’s lawsuit will end this unconstitutional attack on the businesses, large and small, vital to Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “Opening up members of the firearm industry to a torrent of baseless civil lawsuits is – as it was in the past – an effort to impose radical gun control policies by litigating the forceful bankruptcy of companies. New York’s baseless law ignores the fact that members of the firearm industry work cooperatively with federal, state, and local authorities for Real Solutions® to help address crimes involving guns.”

    Legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Turley have long defended the merits of the PLCAA pointing out that laws like the one recently passed in New York are “unsound attempts” to distort principles of liability. New York’s law allows the very type of novel tort law actions, including those by New York State and City of New York, struck down by courts two decades ago.

    NSSF looks forward to working with the individual plaintiffs and other members of the firearm industry to fight this blatantly unconstitutional New York law and in doing so, uphold the foundations of tort law, fight government overreach, and protect the firearm businesses that lawfully operate and employ over 340,000 of Americans.

    For more information on the PLCAA, see NSSF’s Fact Sheet.

  • 12/16/2021 12:26 AM | Anonymous

    New York Democrat Attorney General Letitia James on Tuesday praised California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent move to allow residents to sue gunmakers, saying New York should follow his lead.

    James said: “We need to follow his lead. And the reason why that is, is because gun manufacturers and gun distributors in this country are immunized. No liability whatsoever. They are the only industry that is protected in this country, and given the carnage, and given the fact that this is the anniversary of Sandy Hook, I am sick and tired of prayers and individuals whose hearts go out to all of those who have lost their lives,” she said. “We can do something about it.”

    Sound familiar? It is eerily similar to the “red flag” legislation called for by President Biden and others nationwide. Actually New York passed its own such bill in 2019. It allows NY citizens to contact authorities and declare an acquaintance incapable of owning or possessing firearms.

    Thus began new assault on the rights of gun owners in the face of the ever progressive agenda of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s past regime making it more than well known that gun owners in New York State are not only unwanted, but they are on a list of targets and as he has said in the past if people don’t like his rules, then they are free to leave. 

    Fortunately Mr. Cuomo departed yet left us to still face a majority of like-minded legislators who are willing to continue his legacy. A major goal is for us to ‘win back’ the state senate by electing Republican candidates on whose vote we can depend. Recall that one of the most recent attempts (in 2020) was to pass a bill requiring that each time a gun owner wants to buy a gun, no matter what, they would have to seek out an approved mental health professional to have an evaluation performed. This bill did not reach a full legislative vote but it continues to have many legislative supporters. The question should be when do ALL elected officials get their mental health evaluation ? 

    Lawmakers in the Empire State last year approved what they call the toughest ban on so-called “Ghost Guns” in the country. The measure aims to create tough new statewide laws on firearms without serial numbers such as those commonly built by hobbyists in the comfort of their own home. It would also make the simple act of fitting together the component parts of a firearm a crime for anyone who is not a licensed gunsmith. The bill, like others, has been floating around Albany for almost a decade in one form or another but was consistently foiled while Republicans held narrow control of the senate. 

    These bills may seem harmless to many gun owners. They feel no pressure if it does not appear to affect them personally. The question to ask is when does such encroachment on our personal liberties stop? Certainly a requirement for a mental health evaluation should be the last straw for all of us. Yet it’s failure to become law this past year will lull many to sleep again. 

     

  • 11/16/2021 11:50 PM | Anonymous

    We have now heard the oral arguments in the case challenging New York’s draconian and subjective “may issue” carry laws, and while we’ve heard from dozens of attorneys on both sides of the argument, we haven’t heard much at all from the individual gun owners who are hoping to see the state’s carry regime declared unconstitutional. Until now, anyway.

    Robert Nash, who’s one of two gun owners suing the state, has never before spoken to the press about his involvement in the case, but in an exclusive interview with Bearing Arms, the gun owner lays out the byzantine process of applying for a license and explains why he refused to accept a judge’s decision to deny him an unrestricted carry license and chose instead to take his case to court.

    Nash says that in Rensselaer County, where he lives, the process of applying for a concealed carry license goes something like this: first you gather together all of your necessary paperwork, including proof of training and four character references from individuals who will testify to your suitability to carry a gun. Then you hand over all of your documentary evidence along with several hundred dollars and you wait. Other New York State counties follow a similar procedure.

    For Nash, it took about five months before he found out he’d been granted a “restricted” license, which allows him to take his pistol with him only to hunt or target shoot. Carrying for self-defense, however, is still prohibited with a restricted license, and if you’re caught carrying without a permit it’s a felony charge and a mandatory prison term upon conviction. So after a few months with his restricted license, Nash applied to have those restrictions removed.

    As Nash explains, under New York’s law county officials have broad discretion and leeway in terms of granting or denying licenses. In Rensselaer County, there are multiple judges assigned to decide the outcome of permit applications, and each of them may have very different views on the right to carry. According to Nash, there are several judges in the county who do issue unrestricted permits based on a general concern over personal safety, but there are also judges who rarely if ever find that an applicant has shown “good cause” or a “justifiable need” to carry a gun in self-defense. Guess who Nash ended up with?

    “I submitted a letter to him [the judge assigned to Nash’s application] asking him to remove my restrictions based on local crime in the area,” Nash tells Bearing Arms. “There was a string of robberies which you’ll see in the case, and it was the robberies and just for self-defense that were the reasons I wanted those restrictions removed. And he said ‘no.’ Other judges in the county, I could have submitted the same letter and they would have said ‘yes” in a minute. Even for lesser reasons. I’ve had other people that I know just say they want to protect their wife and kids and they get approved. Same county. Different judge.”

    This is a perfect example of the subjective nature of New York’s carry permitting laws. Not only do applicants have to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a firearm in self-defense, it’s up to the issuing authorities to decide what that justifiable need looks like. You may be lucky enough to get a judge or a county sheriff who believes that the right to bear arms is indeed a constitutional right and approves all permits from those legal gun owners who meet the training qualifications and submits their proper paperwork, or you could end up getting a judge who doesn’t believe that anyone should be walking around with a lawfully carried gun on their person. Your ability to exercise your Second Amendment rights aren’t based on the Constitution in New York, but on the whims of those in a position of authority.

    Nash’s denial didn’t sit well with him, and so a few months after his application had been rejected, he reached out to Tom King, the head of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association to let him know what had happened.

    He says ‘I know all about this, you’re not the only one, but I don’t know if we have a case yet. Let me talk to someone at the NRA.’ And he did, and he got back to me right away. And he said, ‘Look, I think we have a case. Here’s the roadmap they want to go with, but are you willing to stick your neck out over this? This is going to be a high-profile, your name’s going to be everywhere kind of thing.’ And without hesitation I said yes.”

    So here we are several years later, with Nash, co-plaintiff Brandon Koch, and the New York State Rifle Association squaring off with the state of New York in the Supreme Court (the National Rifle Association is financially supporting the challenge, but is not a named party in the lawsuit). Nash says he’s not expecting the Supreme Court to overturn every carry licensing law in existence, but he is hoping that a majority of justices strike down the subjective “may issue” laws on the books in New York and a handful of other states.

    “I just want to get New York’s law fixed. That was my goal from Day One. I don’t think that ‘proper cause’ should be in there at all, and I hope that the justices, when they’re reading New York State’s law and comparing it to the Second Amendment, I hope that they deem that this proper cause requirement violates the Second Amendment.”

    Nash is far from alone in his wishes. There are tens of millions of Americans hoping the Court does the same, me included. I appreciate Robert Nash standing up for his own Second Amendment rights and the rights of every other law-abiding citizen, and I’m looking forward to checking in with him again in just a few weeks after the oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen take place.


<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next >  Last >> 

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software