Log in


Complete list of Wayne County SCOPE's Articles

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

  • 12/13/2022 12:58 PM | Anonymous

    At Large SCOPE Directors

    Each SCOPE County Chapter Chair is automatically a member of SCOPE’s State Board of Directors.  There are also “At Large Board Directors” who are elected by the membership by written ballot.  An At Large Director is equal in all respects to other board members.

    This is an opportunity to “step up” in the fight to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights and to participate in and help set the direction of SCOPE’s efforts. 

    The Board meets in person at the Members Meeting (in April) and the Annual Banquet (usually in September) and probably 1 other time in central New York.  It meets by ZOOM 2 or 3 other times and occasionally by ZOOM as needed (usually on Saturdays.)  Issues are sometimes discussed by E-Mails between board members in what are not official meetings but give guidance on issues to the Board’s Officers.

    If you are interested, please send a notice of your candidacy and a biography, postmarked by January 1st to:


    PO Box 165
    East Aurora, NY 14052

    Or E-Mail it to:

    The biography will be printed in the February edition of Firing Lines.  (We’ll help you edit it, if you need help.)

    Below are some excerpts from SCOPE’s by-laws which outline the position, qualifications and procedures.

    At-large directors shall be elected through ballots mailed to the members in advance of the annual meeting of members. (The ballots will be included in the Firing Lines which comes out in early February.)

    Ballots shall be returned from the members and postmarked no later than the specified required postmark date.  That date shall be no fewer than 14 days prior to the date of the annual meeting of members. (The date of the Annual Meeting will also be announced in the February Firing Lines.)

    The At-large Directors shall be elected to hold office for two-year terms

    Directors may be elected to any number of consecutive terms.

    Directors must be at least 18 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years prior to their notice of candidacy. The State Board of Directors may waive the two year requirement.

    To become an at-large candidate a member must give a notice of candidacy and a biography by January 1st to the election committee. The member will become a recognized candidate unless the election committee can show cause for ineligibility.

    In order to be elected as an At-Large Director, a candidate must get at least 35 votes.

  • 11/07/2022 3:40 PM | Anonymous

    We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

    by Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes.

    Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

    They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.

    These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.  However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. 

    While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

    And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

    Under these laws, initial confiscations of firearms often require just a “reasonable suspicion,” which is little more than a guess or a hunch. Judges simply have a piece of paper in front of them with the complaint when they are first asked to take away a person’s guns. When hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. 

    During the first nine months after Florida passed its Red Flag law last year, judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect, more than 300 people had their guns taken away. In one case, an Arundel County man was fatally shot in the struggle that ensued when police came to confiscate his weapons at 5 a.m. Connecticut and Indiana, which have had these laws in effect for the longest time, have seen significant increases in confiscation orders as time has gone by.

    These laws let the government take firearms away from people arrested but not convicted of crimes. Even simple complaints without arrests have been enough. That is quite a change in people’s constitutional rights, and don’t be surprised if courts eventually strike down such provisions. Gun-control advocates have resisted making this change explicit in the laws, presumably out of fear that it would create problems in the courts. Also, courts frequently take into account other factors such as gender and age in predicting the chances someone will commit a crime or commit suicide.

    When people really pose a clear danger to themselves or others, confine them to a mental-health facility. Guns are only one way they can do harm, and if they are intent on hurting others or themselves they can find a way. 

    Consider, also, the impact Red Flag laws can have on people who need and want help. Absent such laws, a person contemplating suicide might speak to a friend or family member and be dissuaded from that dire course of action. With the laws, they may fear that speaking out will result in a report to authorities – and their ability to defend themselves or loved ones would be restricted. 

    Take the case of a woman I know who saw her husband murdered in front of her by a stalker. Understandably, she was incredibly depressed, but still fearful for her safety. Under Red Flag laws, she wouldn’t talk to those closest to her about her feelings because she worried about losing her ability to protect herself. Even a well-meaning person might have gone to a judge to have this woman’s ability to defend herself taken away. She was even reticent to speak to a psychiatrist about her depression, but at least she would have an opportunity to explain her concerns with those people.

    Police officers often experience depression on the job. Would we be better off if they worried that sharing their feelings might mean having their guns taken from them and the loss of their jobs? 

    Liberals understood this point during the AIDS crisis. They knew that the threat of quarantining would discourage infected people from seeking medical help. But they seem unaware that the threat of leaving people defenseless might engender similar concerns. . . .

    The rest of the piece is available here.

  • 10/14/2022 1:57 AM | Anonymous

    Congresswoman Tenney Introduces Resolution Condemning New York’s Concealed Carry Law As Unconstitutional

    Utica, NY – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22) and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional. The CCIA was rushed through the state legislature and signed by Governor Hochul on July 1, 2022, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the state’s previous unconstitutional concealed carry law.

    The resolution was also cosponsored by Representatives Darrell Issa (CA-50), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Jefferson Van Drew (NJ-02), Andy Harris (MD-01), Mary Miller (IL-15), and John Moolenaar (MI-04).

    Last year, Congresswoman Tenney led 175 of her House Republican colleagues in an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Court’s eventual ruling striking down New York’s arbitrary and unconstitutional Sullivan Law was the most significant victory for Second Amendment advocates since D.C. v. Heller.

    However, the state legislature then stepped in to replace the Sullivan Law with an even more outrageous law, which, among other things, requires concealed carry permit applicants to turn over their personal social media accounts, mandates interviews with state officials, and broadly bans the concealed carry of weapons in a range of public and private locations. Last week, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby blocked the state from enforcing several provisions, including bans on concealed carry in sensitive locations and requirements for applicants to turn over social media accounts. Since then, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has granted an interim stay of Judge Suddaby’s ruling in response to a motion for a stay pending appeal filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

    “Despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the Second Amendment remains under attack from far-left politicians in Albany,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision upheld the right of Americans to conceal carry and rejected overreaching state laws infringing on our Second Amendment right. But Democrats in New York, led by Governor Kathy Hochul, ignored that court ruling and enacted a blatantly unconstitutional law. While legal challenges against this law work their way through the courts, I am honored to stand once again in support of New Yorkers’ right to keep and bear arms.”

    “Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values," said Congresswoman Stefanik. "We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

    "New York's Attorney General, who is no friend of the Second Amendment, clearly isn't getting the message from the Bruen decision. Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry arms in self-defense across the state outside of their own homes. While New York is appealing our victory, Mayor Adams has just signed legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and Judge Suddaby’s ruling from last week. We commend Rep. Tenney for criticizing the anti-gun hysteria of New York politicians. GOA and GOF will keep fighting for our members in Antonyuk v. Hochul until the state admits defeat or is brought into line by the high court once again," said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America.

    “The provisions in New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) stand in direct opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen. Such blatant disregard for the highest court in the land cannot be allowed to stand. On behalf of our five million members and our tens of million of supporters across the country, we thank Rep. Claudia Tenney for defending the rights of law-abiding gun owners and offering this important resolution," said Jason Ouimet, Executive Director of NRA-ILA.

    Similar resolutions have been passed by county legislatures throughout upstate New York since the law’s passage, including in Oswego, Wyoming, Orleans, and Niagara. Tenney’s resolution is supported by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

    The full text of the resolution is available here.

  • 10/13/2022 1:16 PM | Anonymous

    Attorney General James Releases Statement on Court Decision to Temporarily Keep New York’s Concealed Carry Gun Laws 

    NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after an appellate judge granted an interim administrative stay on U.S. District Court Judge Glenn T. Suddaby’s decision in Antonyuk v. Hochul, meaning the full Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) will remain in effect:

    “I am pleased that the full Concealed Carry Improvement Act will stay in effect and continue to protect communities as the appeals process moves forward. My office will continue our efforts to protect the safety of everyday New Yorkers and defend our common-sense gun laws.”

    As a result of today’s decision, the full CCIA is in effect until a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit decides on the motion to stay. Earlier this week, Attorney General James filed a motion for a temporary pause on the district court’s decision to stop enforcement of some parts of the CCIA. Today, an administrative stay was granted, pausing the decision until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit acts on the motion.

    The CCIA was passed during an extraordinary session of the Legislature and enacted earlier this summer in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The law strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.

  • 09/16/2022 9:57 AM | Anonymous

    No more Brady Checks in Wayne County!
    September 16, 2022  by News10NBC

    WAYNE COUNTY, N.Y. (WHEC) — There’s been a change in the pistol permit process in Wayne County, outside of the new state laws that took effect on Sept. 1 of this year.

    Up until now, a background check would have to be completed, every five years, in order for a simple amendment to be applied to a pistol permit.  Such amendments included name or address changes, and disposal of weapons.  In Wayne County, one could not make a handgun purchase unless he/she had a current five-year background check on file. 

    Those background checks, also known as Brady Checks, required a comprehensive check of several systems to see if a permit holder had been involved in any activity that would initiate suspension or revocation proceedings of that permit.   That process could take up to several weeks, dependent upon the number of new applications submitted to the Sheriff’s Office.  Various political races also affected the amount of Brady Checks that were submitted.  The Brady process, combined with the regular course of business, conducting backgrounds for new pistol permit applicants lengthened the time it would take for a new applicant to acquire a permit.  

    Brady Checks, enacted in 1993, mandated background checks on firearm purchases.  With informational safeguards within the criminal justice system, to include the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Sheriff Milby sought to streamline the redundancies of the system in Wayne County.  After discussions with Wayne County Court Judges and the Wayne County Clerk, a decision was made to cease the process, effective immediately.  

    “Those amendments that were pending will no longer have to wait.  County Clerk, Mike Jankowski will be sending those amendments out right away.  All Brady checks on file have been grandfathered into this.  To purchase a weapon on an existing permit, a NICS check will satisfy the process, and once the NICS check clears the purchase, you may file your amendment with the County Clerk,” said the Sheriff.

    Sheriff Milby wishes to remind everyone that New York State still requires all Carry Concealed Permit Holders to recertify their permits every 3 years, which can be done online, and is not a background check process.

  • 08/31/2022 12:25 AM | Anonymous

    Indianapolis, IN – The National Police Association (NPA) filed an amicus brief in support of a Preliminary Injunction against New York state’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA).

    The lawsuit was filed by Ivan Antonyuk and Gun Owners of America.

    In a quick response to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, the state of New York passed a comprehensive gun control law, CCIA, that will eviscerate 2nd Amendment civil rights in New York if enacted.

    Contrary to the decision by SCOTUS the new law prohibits permitted concealed carry in most public places and creates scenarios where carrying concealed can be an unknowing violation of the law. Further, the new law replaces the subjective standard of having to prove a special need for 2ndAmendment rights, which was struck down by the court, with the subjective standard of having to prove possession of the moral character needed for 2nd Amendment rights. Moral as defined by who?

    If allowed to go into place as law, the Second Amendment will be a legal fiction in the fourth most populous state in our union, even though the nation’s highest court just told us all, explicitly, that the Second Amendment is not a legal fiction but a full partner with the other “Bill of Rights” guarantees such as freedom of speech.

    While firearms in the wrong hands are a serious concern for law enforcement, unconstitutionally keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens seeking to provide for the safety of themselves and their loved ones is just as bad. While the National Police Association supports the police, it does not support a police state, where law-abiding citizens are at minimum prevented from self-defense and at maximum turned into criminals by way of vague and unconstitutional laws.

    The CCIA is bad for safety; it is bad for public policy; it is bad for law enforcement; it is bad for the rule of law. Most importantly it is patently unconstitutional and the Plaintiff’s  sought declaratory and injunctive relief should be granted in advance of the flawed act’s enactment date.

    NPA spokesperson Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith stated, “A number of studies suggest that objective concealed carry regimes, and not the subjective, arbitrary regime put in place by the CCIA—can both lower violent crime and reduce the number of officer fatalities in many jurisdictions.” For this reason, plus those articulated in the Plaintiffs, Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the NPA supports Plaintiffs’ effort to have this Court declare the CCIA unconstitutional under the text of the Second Amendment and the principles recently articulated in Bruen.

    The National Police Association is represented by Robert S. Lafferrandre of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The NPA’s amicus brief can be read here:


    About The National Police Association

    The National Police Association (NPA) is a 501(c)3 Educational/Advocacy non-profit organization. For additional information visit

  • 07/08/2022 1:25 PM | Anonymous

    The Wayne County Clerk's office has recently updated information on their website for obtaining a pistol permit.  Note that this information is located on the Clerk's home page of the Wayne County site, and not on the previous (and still accessible) web page for pistol permit information.

    The new information can be found at:

    The old page is still there and can be referenced at:

  • 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


    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


    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.

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