BELLEVUE, WA – The Biden administration has sunk to a new low in its anti-gun crusade, reportedly withholding funds from schools that have hunting or archery programs as part of their curriculum, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Fox News is reporting the administration “is blocking key federal funding earmarked under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 for schools with hunting and archery programs. This is allegedly happening because the administration may be “misinterpreting” provisions in the ESEA and last year’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), as suggested by Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both Republicans.

“While we appreciate the diplomacy exhibited by Senators Cornyn and Tillis,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we’re not convinced the Biden administration is making an innocent mistake here. Quite the opposite, in fact. This appears to be just another manifestation of Joe Biden’s crusade against anything promoting a positive approach to firearms, especially if it is taught in elementary and secondary schools, where young people can learn about genuine firearms safety, and perhaps prevent a tragedy.

“We’re joining our friends at the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Safari Club International in raising alarms because this appears to be just one more attack on the Second Amendment by the Biden administration,” he added. “But instead of confining his hostility to the grown men and women of the outdoors and the larger shooting community, now the strategy includes depriving youngsters of opportunities to learn valuable life skills.

“Maybe if Biden’s own son had enjoyed such an opportunity as a youngster,” Gottlieb said, “he might have known better than to do something which has now landed him in court.

“Having watched Joe Biden throughout his political career, embracing every gun control measure to come along,” he observed, “this was almost predictable. History has demonstrated that if there’s a way to impair any positive firearms program, he will find it.”

How likely are you to die in a mass shooting? It should be one of the least of your worries. You are a thousand times more likely to die from Parkinson’s Disease. 

Yet the Center for Disease Control (CDC) claims “547 dead, 476 hurt in mass shootings since 1983” as reported by Yahoo News. 

Perhaps the doctors at the CDC should be more concerned about members of their own profession. A recent study by Harvard and the John Hopkins Institute records the numbers of deaths due to medical errors to be 371,000 in one year alone. 

That’s right, while the anti-gun CDC maligns gun owners by vilifying guns, it continues to ignore problems in its own sphere of influence. Consider this chart for a recent year. 

    Leading Causes of Death (2021)

  Heart disease                    695,547

  Cancer                                 605,213

  COVID-19                            416,893

* (Medical errors                  371,000) (unpublished)

  Accidents (unintentional) 224,935

Suddenly the number of deaths by guns (~48,000) seems minuscule by comparison. Keep in mind, approximately 38,000 of the estimated 48,000 deaths involving a gun was listed as a suicide. Yet, the CDC wants to talk about “gun violence” rather than focus upon their own medical field and the huge number of errors resulting in the death of Americans. 

This major study by Harvard and Johns Hopkins actually found that over 800,000 Americans are killed/seriously injured due to medical errors and misdiagnoses. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12320341/Doctors-diagnostic-blunders-killed-permanently-disabled-800-000-Americans-year-shocking-data-suggests.html 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Do you recall someone telling us: “‘WeThe People’ means the Government”? You may have missed it but a statement like that should not be spoken by a leader of this great nation. We should not take pleasure in hearing it nor look forward to his interpretation as to how it may affect our freedom. 

Does it imply that we should expect to be subservient to our governments? Should we assume we are only a means to an end with that end to be determined by those we elect to serve us? Perhaps he was simply referring to the joining of individuals to form a union such that they will share the same ideals. Yet recent events lead me to believe otherwise. It appears he is advocating for political authority over the actions, affairs etc of the American people. 

We celebrated the 247^th anniversary of our independence on July Fourth. Obviously, this is a celebration of America’s independence from England. Does it not also refer to the capacity of each of us to manage our own affairs, make our own judgements and provide for oneself. Certainly, a statement by Evelyn Beatrice Hill in 1906 is still valid in this free country: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.”

Yet on that same day, 07/04/23, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U. S. District Court in the Western District of Louisiana, Missouri ruled in favor of a request for an injunction against the Biden administration which is accused of violating the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This carries the strong odor of an attempt to control our personal liberties. 

It is alleged that the federal government suppressed speech on social media regarding the efficiency of masking and COVID-19 lockdowns. The integrity of the 2020 presidential election was also brought into question. Would you ever believe that your federal government might ‘strong arm’ social media giants in an effort to regulate free speech?

If the allegations are true, this case may “arguably involve the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history”. The federal government may likely have deliberately ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech. 

The following quotes reveal the Founding Fathers’ thoughts on freedom of speech:

       “For if men are to be precluded from offering their           sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

        “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the Free acts of speech.”

Consolidating absolute power from a free people is never easy. Thankfully we live in a Constitutional Republic where we were created to be free. This may not be contained in the playbook of an autocrat in Washington, D.C. but it definitely was the belief of our Founding Fathers. 

They provided with us with a Constitution containing our “natural” rights which William Blackstone, the Oxford attorney, referred to as “absolute”. They came to us from God through nature. Not the least of which is the Second Amendment that protects our right to self-preservation and our right to live freely. Thus, it is a means to protect our life and a means to keep our government in check. 

The Wayne County Chapter of Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) herein provides our ratings of candidates for Wayne County voters. These should not be construed as endorsements. 

We are offering our unbiased ratings of the two candidates for Wayne County Judge in the Republican Primary scheduled for Tuesday, June 27 from 6 am to 9 pm following an interview with the candidates by our Public Relations Contact Team (PACT). 

Our PACT committee met for an hour with each candidate in an effort to better understand their interpretations of Constitutional and civil liberties inclusive of the Second Amendment as well as other natural rights susceptible to Government infringement. 

The candidates expressed their own personal views on these matters, but it should be made clear that the successful candidate will decide all cases fairly and impartially in accordance with Constitutional governing laws. 

For the office of Wayne County Judge:

Candidate Dan Majchrzak: A

Candidate John Grow: A—

                                     

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed a reply to the federal government’s arguments supporting the ban. The case is known as Reese v. ATF. Joining SAF are the Louisiana Shooting Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is known. The case is now before the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals. The document opens with a blockbuster statement: “The Government’s defense of the Handgun Ban is notable for a conspicuous absence: the lack of any Founding era law barring 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms from any source. To the contrary, shortly after adoption of the Second Amendment Congress affirmatively required 18-to-20-year-olds to acquire firearms. The Government’s modern-day attempt to prohibit 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers contradicts the Nation’s history of firearm regulations and therefore must be invalidated.” “The government really has no credible defense,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Instead, the government argues incredulously that the ban targets conduct not protected by the Second Amendment, because the age group in question—young adults aged 18-20—was historically excluded from that right, which is utter nonsense.” “There is no historical evidence of any such ban for people in the 18-to-20-year age group,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The government’s contention that young adults are not part of ‘the people’ mentioned in the Bill of Rights is patently absurd. Young adults have historically fought to defend this country, they can vote, run for office, start businesses, enter into contracts, get married, and own property. To suggest otherwise is an effort to rewrite history.”

A New York state law requiring micro-stamping capability in new pistols is already five months behind schedule, with final results from a required study of the technology not expected until later this year. 

Last June, Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers made New York the second state in the country to approve a measure requiring micro-stamping technology — in which a small, unique code is etched into bullet casings when they’re fired — in new semiautomatic pistols. The bill’s passage came amid worries over instances of gun violence statewide. 

But the law came with a major caveat: Four years before the measure takes effect, the state Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) must certify whether micro-stamping is “technologically viable." Under the law, that was supposed to happen within 180 days of Hochul’s signature — which put the deadline in December 2022. 

But DCJS missed that deadline and continues to study the technology— which means the four-year clock for the law to take effect hasn’t started yet. 

Janine Kava, the DCJS spokesperson, said the division’s Office of Forensic Services has convened a working group to make the microstamping determination. The group’s goal is to finish its work and make a final decision before the end of the year, according to Kava. 

“To date, this working group has compiled and reviewed scientific materials, held discussions with various stakeholders, and requested additional information,” she said in a statement. “However, given the scope of the inquiry and the volume of data to review, DCJS is continuing to determine whether such technology is viable.” 

Part of the delay appears to have been over budgetary issues. 

Under the law, DCJS’ study is required to include “live-fire testing evidence.” But last year’s law didn’t include any funding to complete the study. Last month, DCJS received funding for the study in the state’s new budget; it’s expected to cost up to $500,000, according to the division. 

“Because of funding concerns, they were unable to complete the work,” said Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the bill and has been in contact with DCJS. “So, they will be reaching out to firearms experts outside DCJS, and they do have funding from the budget that we just finished.” 

Gun control advocates had been pushing New York to approve a micro-stamping mandate for well over a decade, dating back to then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg putting money behind an unsuccessful lobbying push in 2010. 

Supporters have billed the technology as a potential aid to law enforcement. By requiring pistols to stamp the shell casings with a unique code, it theoretically makes it easier for investigators to track bullets back to an individual firearm and who it is registered to. 

But gun owner organizations have long pushed back. They argue that the technology, which is still relatively new, is unproven and unfeasible since it’s not widely used anywhere in the U.S. 

New York’s 2022 law set out a four-and-a-half-year timeline for implementing the microstamping mandate assuming the technology proved reliable. 

First, DCJS would study the technology and determine whether it’s viable. Once it issues the certification, DCJS will have a year to issue performance standards and testing criteria for microstamp-equipped pistols and for the technology itself, and two years to come up with a variety of other rules and procedures for shops that sell and service pistols. 

The penalties for selling a non-microstamp-equipped pistol — the centerpiece of the mandate — won’t kick in until four years after DCJS says the technology is viable. 

During her election campaign last year, Hochul, a Democrat, touted the microstamping law as a symbol of her fight against a scourge of gun violence. 

“We’re microstamping bullets so it’s easier to catch criminals,” Hochul said in a campaign ad that featured an image of the Tops supermarket in Buffalo that was the site of a racist and deadly mass shooting last year. 

State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) sponsored the microstamping bill. He acknowledged he’s concerned about the apparent delay. 

“We need to get this moving,” he said. “But we understand that we want to do it right. We'll be coordinating with DCJS to make sure that these regulations are written and put into effect as soon as possible.” 

Hoylman-Sigal said he anticipates DCJS will ultimately determine microstamping is feasible. 

New York isn’t the only state that has struggled to implement its microstamping law. 

California first passed a microstamping mandate in 2007, though the state didn’t end up determining the technology is feasible until 2013. But gun manufacturers got around the law by declining to manufacture new models, according to the Giffords Law Center , a gun-control organization. 

"It really is a technology that has the potential to be a real powerful game-changer in terms of police investigations," said David Pucino, deputy chief counsel of the Giffords Law Center. 

A new California law allowing the state to slowly start removing old models from the state's list of approved firearms recently took effect. 

The California law that included the original microstamping requirement is also the subject of a lawsuit working its way through the federal courts.

Newspaper editors reap the benefits of our Constitution’s First Amendment and expect us to accept a literal or exact meaning of it.  Can you blame them since it helps provide them with their livelihood. Funny how so many of them like to blame guns whenever a shooting occurs. 

Where is their expectation for a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note that our NY Constitution does not contain this language, but NY civil law uses the term “cannot” be infringed. 

Those who like to blame guns after recent mass shootings should recall when the Buffalo shooter said he chose New York because its strict gun laws made armed opposition less likely.  Shooters often choose a “gun free zone”.  Why? No doubt less likely to run into a “good guy with a gun”.  There might have been a totally different outcome with one or more concealed-carry customers in the store. 

The CDC, in 2021, published a “fact sheet” showing estimated defensive gun uses (DGU) happen between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States. Lives can be preserved by relying on the Second Amendment just as livelihoods are preserved by the First Amendment. 

.

Senators John Kennedy (R-La.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced the ‘Respect for the Second Amendment Act’ to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The legislation would codify the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. 

Kennedy said: “Congress has the ability to use its authority to guard against state overreach—and that is what this bill does. At a time when the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is under attack in courtrooms throughout America, we must ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision about the Second Amendment is not only legal precedent but that the law preserves it forever…The Supreme Court has spoken very clearly in Heller and Bruen on the Second Amendment: We have an individual right to own a gun.”

Kennedy added: “I also believe that love is the answer, but…I own a hand gun just in case.”

According to the bill’s announcement, The Respect for the Second Amendment Act would:

• Create public and private rights of action against any person who seeks to enforce a law, rule or ordinance that violates the constitutional right of an individual to manufacture for personal use, acquire, possess, own, carry, transport or use a privately owned firearm or privately owned ammunition unless that law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and history of firearm regulation.
• Prohibit states from rejecting firearms licenses on the sole basis of the license originating under another state’s jurisdiction.
• Eliminate 18 U.S. Code § 927 so that, on a case-by-case basis, Congress can override state law when it proves an unconstitutional attempt to override the Second Amendment.

Section 2 of the bill (FINDINGS) is a good short summary of why this is necessary and Section 2 (6) strikes directly at Hochul and New York.

Section 3C gives us the right to recover ‘costs and a reasonable attorney fee’ if we have to sue because our rights are violated. The cost of these lawsuits has been a major factor which discourages people from taking to court these infringements of our rights.

This is an opportunity to contact your Senators, no matter what party, and tell them you support this bill and 2A. This bill gives the Senator the opportunity to support the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. This is especially important since Senator Gillibrand is coming up for reelection in 2024. 

Consider doing the same in the House of Representatives and add that they should introduce a companion bill in the House.

Hochul proposes ‘technical’ changes to concealed carry law

Updated: Feb. 03, 2023, 4:14 p.m

By Joshua Solomon | Times Union, Albany

Albany, N.Y. — Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a number of “technical” revisions to New York’s contested concealed carry laws, including allowing armed security guards at places of worship and providing clearer guidelines for retired law enforcement officers in good standing to possess a firearm in a “sensitive location.”

The proposals were included in Hochul’s executive budget, released Wednesday, and seek to update the state’s retooled concealed carry laws, enacted in July following a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s longtime rules governing the possession and concealment of firearms in public.

The “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” is the target of numerous challenges in federal court by pro-Second Amendment groups. Some judges have already ruled it is an unconstitutional reach on people’s right to possess a firearm following the landmark decision in the Supreme Court case — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin Bruen, the then-superintendent of the State Police.

Hochul is seeking to clarify under the state’s new concealed carry laws that security guards at places of worship can possess a firearm, despite places like churches being deemed a “sensitive location” where guns are prohibited. Currently, security guards can possess a firearm while working their job, but it does not specify they can be hired to work at a place of worship.

The governor is also proposing to allow retired law enforcement who are in good standing and up to date on their firearms licenses to be exempt from the concealed carry laws. The statute allows retired police officers to carry a firearm in sensitive locations, but the new language expands on that definition, using a federal standard for law enforcement instead of the state’s regulation.

Following backlash from upstate Republicans, Hochul wants to clarify that firearms are also allowed at historical reenactments, on movie or theater production sets, as well as by people participating in military ceremonies, funerals and honor guards or in a biathlon competition. She also is recommending that the designation of a public park as a restricted “sensitive location” does not apply to the Adirondack or Catskill state parks, which encompass massive swaths of residential areas

Without any further legal questions, the proposals are likely to make their way through the budget process, a two-month period of negotiations among lawmakers and the governor as they seek to push their respective policies and financial initiatives into the state’s $227 billion proposed spending plan.

Democratic lawmakers signaled no concern with the proposal in the 24 hours following the release of Hochul’s policy bills. (Hochul had not noted in her State of the State address last month nor her budget remarks this week that any changes to the concealed carry laws would be offered.

Hochul’s proposed changes would help to “ensure that the state’s firearm regulations are implemented effectively and keep New Yorkers safe,” according to a budget memorandum explaining the need for the amendments.

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby ruled in August on GOA-NY’s case against the concealed carry laws. He said that “while pursuing the laudable goal of public safety, and in an attempt to curb ever-increasing mass shootings, the New York state Legislature has generated an unconstitutional statute.” The ruling is being appealed by state attorney general’s office and Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James stand by the law as written.

In a separate court case, pastors with New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms contend the restrictions on firearms in places of worship are a violation of civil rights.

The group, which advocates on behalf of New York’s evangelical Christian community, are seeking to “exercise their constitutional and natural right to self-defense while also exercising their constitutional right to worship free of discrimination or prejudice,” according to a complaint filed in the case.

“It appears that the Hochul administration has tacitly acknowledged that the (Concealed Carry Improvement Act) goes too far and that a course correction is needed,” Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said in a statement.

McGuire viewed it as Hochul seeking to “cut her losses ... on an issue that the courts have not looked kindly upon.”

“While it appears that those lawsuits have sent the governor a message, churches should not have had to take legal action to defend themselves from this unfair and unconstitutional law in the first place,” McGuire said.

 

 

Friday, December 30th 2022

Rochester, N.Y. — New York State Supreme Court Judge Thomas Moran ruled last week that one of the state's strongest gun laws is unconstitutional.

The Extreme Risk Protection Order law, also known as the Red Flag law, allows law enforcement to temporarily seize a person's guns based on someone else making a written allegation in a petition to a judge that the person poses a harm to themself or others.

Payton Gendron recently pleaded guilty to murder and hate-motivated terrorism charges for gunning down 10 people in a racially motivated massacre at a Tops store in Buffalo earlier this year.

Less than a year before the May 14 attack, New York State Police investigated Gendron for a threat he made at his high school.

Zeneta Everhart, whose daughter Zaire, a Tops employee, was injured by Gendron, believes the Red Flag law could have saved many lives and prevented life-altering injuries if it was properly enforced when Gendron made the initial threat.

"These are things that authorities around him knew about," Everhart said. "These are things that law enforcement around him knew about, so why would he still have access to a gun?"

The attorney who successfully argued the unconstitutionality of the Red Flag law, Daniel Strollo, said the law allows a "very quick and easy mechanism to deprive somebody of their fundamental Second Amendment rights."

"You have people who are essentially not medical professionals expressing medical opinions that result in the deprivation of rights," Strollo said. "And you have a procedure that essentially allows somebody to lose those rights without ever having gone in front of a judge."