Our Governor at Work

It’s doubtful if anyone could paint Kathy Hochul as anything but an enemy to the 2nd Amendment.  She doesn’t let the U S Constitution or NY State laws stop her and not just in her opposition to guns*.  Politics seems to trump concern for the people of New York State.

For example.

As SCOPE reported on January 16th, NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is President Trump’s nomination to be his Ambassador to the U N.** 

Once confirmed and Stefanik resigns, under the current law, Governor Hochul will have 10 days to schedule a special election in the following 70 to 80 days.  So, Stefanik’s 21st congressional district will have up to three months without a Representative.  Did I mention that the 21st is a solid Republican district?  With Republican control of the House of Representatives so close, a vacant Republican seat would make their majority ultra-thin, but only last for about three months.   

Thus cometh NY Senate bill S4588*** which would move the election to replace Stefanik to November, keeping the House Republican majority ultra-thin for an added six months.

Here is the rational, directly from the bill:

“New York's current system of filling federal and state elected office vacancies places undue financial and operational burdens on local boards of elections and exacerbates voter confusion and fatigue by asking voters to frequently participate in elections throughout the year.”

(Where was all this concern about fiscal issues and voter confusion and exhaustion in 2022 when the Democrats were overturning a redistricting commission that they established?)

With such a “noble” rationale behind the bill, one would think that Governor Hochul would leap to defend it.  Not so!

Hochul tried to distance herself from the plan to hobble President Trump’s agenda.  She claimed she had nothing to do with the plan even as the state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins contradicted Hochul’s stance and said: “It began with her.”  Apparently, House Minority Leader and Brooklyn Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was also involved in the effort but, somehow, Hochul claims knew nothing about it.

That the people of Stefanic’s district will not have any representation in Congress until November is just collateral damage to Hochul’s pursuit of political power.

Then there is this example.

Last September, prosecutors at the Southern District of New York indicted NY City Mayor Eric Adams.  He was accused of receiving benefits from Turkish nationals which, prosecutors alleged, led to a quid pro quo. 

Adams pled not guilty in court.

On February 10th, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said in a letter that the case cannot be brought until after this year’s mayoral election. The directive from Bove makes no assessment on the strength of the evidence against Adams and only delays any action, but he says it is hindering Adams' ability to address the immigration crisis.

NY City has been a Sanctuary City for illegal aliens, which definitely hinders everyone’s ability to address the immigrant crisis – if one wants to address it and Hochul has made it clear she does not want to address it.

Eric Adams has said he met, on February 13th, with President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan to prepare for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to resume operations on Rikers Island, which houses the NY City’s largest jail.

On February 14th, Adams said that he wants to loosen New York City’s sanctuary laws to allow the NYPD to cooperate with ICE

On February 18th, it has been reported that Governor Kathy Hochul is considering removing Adams from office as NYC Mayor.  As governor, Hochul has the power to remove Adams from office, but that authority has never been used in the state’s history. 

(Since New York State was officially formed on July 26, 1788, no New York City mayor has deserved being removed from office?  From the founding of our state until the 1930’s, Tammany Hall was the main local political machine of the Democratic Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York state politics but no Mayor in all that time was ever deserving of removal from office for corruption, until Adams?)

There are many unknowns around these actions and accusations and given NY City politicians are involved there are probably no ‘clean hands.’  But the important fact is certain; Hochul showed no public interest in removing Adams from office when these charges were made.  After Adams said he will cooperate with ICE, Hochul is swiftly motivated to take action.

Draw your own conclusions about her political motives.

And then there is “Congestion Pricing” for NY City.

Congestion pricing is a system that charges vehicles $9 during peak hours for entering Manhattan's Congestion Relief Zone (CRZ) — the area below 60th Street, excluding certain highways like the FDR Drive and West Side Highway.

As one can imagine, another ‘tax’ on the middle class was not popular.

It was scheduled to go into effect this past Summer, but Governor Hochul abruptly halted the plan. At the time, she said she worried it would cost motorists too much money. 

(Could she have been more worried that it would cost democrats votes?)

Once the presidential election was over, Congestion Pricing reappeared and took effect on January 5th.  (Maybe votes were her motivation!)

So, why this civics lesson centered on Kathy Hochul.  Politics is dirty and Hochul is not the only one wallowing in the mud.  But many gun owners don’t want to get involved because they don’t believe Hochul and company are coming for their guns.  But as the above examples indicate, the Constitution and laws are considered a hindrance, not a guidance for Hochul and friends.  They may not appear to be coming for your guns – yet – but don’t be deceived by their current actions and words.  They are coming.  It’s not if but when.

Ask yourself this question: do you trust Kathy Hochul after reading he above examples?

* See the Concealed Carry Improvement Act for proof.

** S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education -
Biden, Reciprocity, Stefanik and Hearing

*** Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly

Sale of Child Operated Firearms

To date, there have been five proposed bills introduced in the New York legislature having to do with age restrictions for firearms.  One of those is especially bad!

New York State Senate bill S1358 was introduced by four Democrat Senators in January and referred to the Codes Committee.  It’s summarized as “Sale of child operated firearms.”

Does that bill refer to selling firearms meant only for children?  (That would not be a problem since no one manufactures firearms for children.)

Nope.  Under that harmless sounding name lies a more sinister purpose.

If passed, one year after being passed, in New York State, you will not be able to buy a newly manufactured firearm that has not been “childproofed” against a 5 year old.  Basically, firearms that are widely available almost everywhere else in the United States would be illegal to sell in NYS.    

The bill actually says:

“No person, firm, limited liability company or corporation engaged in the retail business of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms shall sell, deliver or transfer any child operated firearm to another person.”

What is a child operated firearm?

"Child operated firearm means a pistol or revolver manufactured twelve months or more after the effective date of this section which does not contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five years old child from operating the pistol or revolver.”

How does one child proof a firearm to comply with this law?

“Such devices or mechanisms shall include, but not be limited to:

• the capacity to adjust the trigger resistance to at least a ten pound pull; 

• the capacity to alter the firing mechanism so that an average five year old child's hands are too small to operate the pistol or revolver;

• the capacity to require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.”

The way the bill is written, a firearm must have all three of the above, not just any one of the three.

Does this technology even exist?  (Remember, the lack of an effective technology did not stop multiple states from requiring “micro-stamping.”)

Would it make the firearm almost unusable by an adult?

What’s the penalty for selling, a non-child proofed firearm?

“Any person, firm or corporation who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”

The bill only addresses selling these guns.  Could one buy a non-child proofed firearm in another state?

Answer: the gun grabbers in New York would certainly try to stop this with a future bill!  The already tried this in another case.

On February 9th, SCOPE sent an email** explaining proposed bill A00929 which would violate the “Interstate Commerce” clause of the United States Constitution in order to allow NY Attorney General to prosecute New Yorkers and gun sellers who buy guns or ammo in another state without “without contacting the New York state police for authorization.”

Has lack of technology or violation of the United States Constitution ever stopped Kathy Hochul and the New York Legislature?

You might consider dropping your state Senator or Assembly-person a line and tell them how much you dislike this bill.

** S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Assembly Bill A00929

Presidents’ Day

Technically, George Washington was born on February 11th under the Julian calendar, which was still in use for the first 20 years of Washington’s life.  The Gregorian calendar, intended to more accurately mark the solar year, was adopted in 1752, and added 11 days.  Washington’s birthday moved to February 22nd.

In 1879, Washington’s birthday on February 22nd became a legal holiday for federal employees in the District of Columbia.

In 1885, it grew to include the entire nation.  (Joining just four other bank holidays that the federal government recognized at that time: Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day.)

Some states like New York (not the federal government), also celebrated Lincoln’s birthday on February 12th 1809.  Lincoln’s birthday was never a federal holiday.

Congress proposed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. The idea was to move several holidays to various Mondays throughout the year, giving workers a few three-day weekends off. During debate on the bill, it was proposed that Washington’s Birthday be renamed Presidents’ Day to honor the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln. Following much discussion, Congress rejected the name change. But the idea of adding more three-day weekends was popular enough that the Uniform Monday Holiday Act passed Congress in 1968.

In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act took effect. Washington's Birthday holiday was moved from February 22 to the third Monday of the month.  That it splits the difference between Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays is probably not a coincidence, but it is nothing official. The third Monday in February remains only "Washington's Birthday" in federal law. 

However, many states have official variations which include: Washington and Lincoln’s Birthday; Presidents’ Day; Washington’s Birthday; Washington and Jefferson Day.  And some states have a separate state holiday for President’s Day.

The holiday was never ‘President’s Day’ at the federal level but that has become its unofficial title.

Some object to honoring all presidents, just because they had been president, and do not like the title President’s Day.  I’m sure the readers could quickly name a few!

However, if you are going to honor February birth presidents, another president that many feel deserves special recognition was born on February 6th; Ronald Reagan.

MCC’s

Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) classify merchants and businesses by the type of goods or services provided.  Most businesses have one (1) code that covers all purchases.  Historically firearms and ammo purchases were included under a general sporting goods code (5941) under the MCC.

Financial Services companies such as credit card companies use these codes.

The International Standards Organization approved creation of a separate code for guns and ammo, under pressure from the gun control activists, worldwide.

The Biden administration, of course, pushed American financial institutions to adopt this, which is a backdoor into a gun registry.

At the individual state level, California Governor Gavin Newsom became the first governor in the country to enact the MCC firearm credit card code. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis followed suit.  New York Gov. Kathy Hochul joined in by becoming the third state to enact the firearm retail store MCC. 

Hochul expressed the real reason for the code change: “We’re also going to require credit and debit card companies to track purchases at gun dealerships, and make it (possible), in turn, for us to monitor the sale of guns and ammunition.” 

As usual, this effort of the gun grabbing left has lots of holes in it, the main one being that one (1) code applies to all purchases at that business.

Even the anti 2A Bloomberg News reported: “The payment network and its banking partners would have no idea if a gun-store customer is purchasing a [firearm] or safety equipment.”

Hochul suggests NYS can flag “suspicious” purchasing behavior.  A “suspicious” purchase” would prompt a bank to file a Suspicious Activity Report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  However, the banks haven’t defined what would be a suspicious purchase, in this case.

Are all purchases under the new code ‘suspicious?’  Hochul would say yes!

Will buying boxes of shotgun shells, waders, decoys and a hunting license at a local retailer be flagged with the MCC.

To remedy this, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act (PPPA), was introduced by Representative Riley Moore (R-WV) and 25 House colleagues.   It would prohibit a credit card network from requiring firearms retailers to use or assign a special merchant category code that distinguishes such a retailer from a general-merchandise retailer or a sporting-goods retailer.  A firearms retailer may not be assigned any merchant category code that distinguishes the gun dealer from a general-merchandise retailer or a sporting-goods retailer.

Not only would this protect gun owners from one form of government intrusion, it would eliminate a lot of bureaucratic created confusion. 

A similar bill, HR 7450, was introduced in a previous session of Congress, but it did not come up for a vote.  The new version does not yet have a bill number, as of this writing.  

2A defenders are encouraged to write their congressperson to support this bill.

NYS Congress printable .pdf 

Recertification 2.0

Got this advice from a SCOPE Member.

You might want to inform others that if they need to make changes in pistols being co-registered, they need to delete it from their current list and then add it back in as co-registered. (Make sure to jot down the info before you delete so you can add it all back in.)

This is the only method for making changes.

Also, if you have had the semi-automatic rifle added to your permit you need to go to that line and click yes even if you already have it on your permit.

A very helpful gentleman at the NY Trooper website for pistol permit recertification helped me navigate these issues.

If you need to contact the Recertification help desk call: 855-529-4867

________________________________________________________________

U.S. Rep. Mike Bost(R-Ill) and Rep. Morgan Lutrell (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 1041.  Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced S. 478, a companion bill.

Veterans’ who name a fiduciary (or someone to assist with their finances) have their names submitted to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as prohibited individuals.   This practice was temporarily suspended but the suspension will expire on March 14, 2025.

This legislation, introduced both in the House and Senate, would ensure that no Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucrat can strip a veteran with a fiduciary of their rights to keep and bear arms without a judge or court ruling first that the veteran is a danger to themselves or their community.

Those pesky 5^th and 14^th Amendments strike again, much to the dismay of gun grabbers.

_________________________________________________________________

U.S. Representative Jack Bergman (R-MI) reintroduced H.R. 45, the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act (FIND Act). U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) also introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 137).

The FIND Act would prevent corporations and other entities that receive government contracts from discriminating against the firearm and ammunition industries. 

This is important in relation to large financial institutions, to stop them from implementing ‘virtue-signaling’ corporate policies.  These financial institutions have wielded their size and influence in an attempt to restrict firearm manufacturers from conducting constitutionally protected business.

An Illinois County Resident Circuit ruled against a requirement that Illinois residents must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to possess a gun in the home for self-defense.

The judge noted:

“…the defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her own home, even without a valid FOID card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”

“If we compare [the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home] to the right to vote, requiring a voter to pay an administrative fee for absentee voting from their own home would be unthinkable. There is no question that voting from home requires more administrative work. Yet, to require the payment of additional fees would disenfranchise voters, regardless of the amount of the fee”...any fee associated with a FOID card, as related to possessing one for having a gun in one’s home for self-defense, “violates the Second Amendment.”

“After analyzing all the evidence in this matter, this court finds that the defendant’s activity of possessing a firearm within the confines of her home is an act protected by the Second Amendment. Additionally, there are no historical analogues to the FOID Act as required in Bruen.

The decision only impacts this specific case and Illinois.  Being a thoroughly Blue state dominated by Chicago, it will certainly appeal this decision.  But, the logic is strong and may be picked up in other similar cases.

Executive order on 2A

On Friday, February 7th, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that will start to undo the Second Amendment regulations put in effect by Biden. It reads as follows:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

     Section 1.  Purpose.  The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.  It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation.  Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. 
     Sec. 2.  Plan of Action.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
          (i)    All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens;
          (ii)   Rules promulgated by the Department of Justice, including by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, from January 2021 through January 2025 pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
          (iii)  Agencies’ plans, orders, and actions regarding the so-called “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
          (iv)   Reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention;
          (v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;
          (vi)   Agencies’ classifications of firearms and ammunition; and
          (vii)  The processing of applications to make, manufacture, transfer, or export firearms.
     Sec. 3.  Implementation.  Upon submission of the proposed plan of action described in section 2 of this order, the Attorney General shall work with the Domestic Policy Advisor to finalize the plan of action and establish a process for implementation.
     Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
          (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
          (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Assembly Bill A00929

NY State Assembly bill A00929 was introduced by Phillip Steck and Rebecca Seawright.  Referred to Codes Committee in January 8th. No same as (corresponding) bill introduced in the NYS Senate.

Quotes directly from the bill:

‘a) Investigate and prosecute any individual  seller  of  firearms  or retail  firearms dealer who knowingly sells an illegal firearm or rapid fire modification device to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases a firearm or rapid-fire modification device  on behalf  of a New York state resident or who knowingly sells a firearm or rapid-fire modification device to a resident of the state of New York or to  an  individual  who  purchases  a firearm or rapid-fire modification device on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization  pursuant  to  section  two  hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation.’

‘c) Investigate and prosecute any individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer should they knowingly sell ammunition to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases ammunition on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization pursuant to section two hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation.’  (Emphasis Added.)

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says:

‘The Congress shall have Power to…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…’ (Emphasis added)

Article XIII Section 1 of the New York Constitution reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability…”  (Emphasis Added)

It seems that Assemblypersons Steck and Seawright have violated their oaths of office by introducing a bill which is obviously contrary to the United States Constitution in which regulation of interstate commerce is only done by the United States Congress.  Will they be impeached?  (Sarcasm intended.)

How is NY State going to notify every individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer in the world that they need to be contacting the New York state police for authorization - or NYS Attorney General Letitia James will be coming after them? 

Because of the burdensome background check and fees introduced by the Concealed Carry improvement Act and signed into law by Governor Hochul, (an act that has numerous unconstitutional parts) many gun owners now buy ammunition in other states.  

If you should buy ammo in another state, this bill would allow:

3. The attorney general shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section by bringing civil and criminal actions in the state courts of New York.  (Emphasis added.)

It is easy to complain but difficult to get people motivated into action.  How aggressive in doing away with 2nd Amendment protected gun rights does New York State have to get in order to get gun owners motivated? And not just gun owners – anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule-of-law.

Concealed Carry Recertification

Prior to 2013, pistol permits were good for a lifetime and required no recertification. 

In 2013, the NY SAFE Act required pistol permit holders to recertify every five years. This began in January of 2017. Those that certified in 2017 had to recertify five years later, in 2022.

But in late summer 2022, the state tweaked the rules for those who hold a concealed carry permit and they must recertify every three years, not the five that continues to pertain to other permit holders.

So, for those concealed carry permit holders that recertified in 2022 and thought they had five years, guess what?  You will need to recertify this year - 2025

Prior to 2013, lifetime pistol permitting had been typically handled through the county clerks’ offices.  But the SAFE Act granted control of the new pistol permit renewals to the New York State Police.  During the renewal process, handgun owners affirm their basic personal information and that they still own the guns appearing on their permit.

To handle this process an online system was created.

If you want to check your recertification status:

Go to  NYS Pistol Permit Recertification

Click on Check Recertification Status

You will need to know:

 your last name,

date of birth,

drivers license number,

last four digits of your social security number

and that you are not a robot

Click on Check Recertification Status

Your recertification status should then appear.

Miscellaneous lawsuits and Proposed Laws

“Elite Precision Customs LLC, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al.”  is a new lawsuit, which has just been filed, that challenges the federal ban on interstate handgun sales.  Under current federal law, individuals cannot purchase handguns across state lines directly from dealers unless the firearms are shipped to a dealer in the purchaser’s home state. (Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and § 922(b)(3).)

The lawsuit says the ban violates the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from purchasing handguns across state lines for lawful purposes.  Modern background checks and digital records negate the concerns that originally justified these restrictions and that the restrictions are outdated.

________________________________________________________________

Currently, New York State fully bans the use and ownership of suppressors.

State Senate Minority Leader Robert G. Ortt’s proposed bill, S02099, would legalize firearm suppressors in New York state, allowing for the legal possession of suppressors. Forty-two other states allow for the use of firearm suppressors.

Senator Ortt has introduced a version of this bill every legislative session since 2017.  It is hoped that, at some point, Democrat Senators who oppose this bill will realize that suppressors have no legitimate negative consequences as they are almost never used in crimes - except in movies where they only go puff.  (And we all know that Hollywood never lies.  Sarcasm intended.)

__________________________________________________________________

 Reese v. ATF is a Louisiana lawsuit challenging the ban on firearm sales to persons under 21 years of age. The plaintiffs argue that federal laws unconstitutionally restrict their right to keep and bear arms based on their age, thereby denying them equal protection under the law. They seek a judicial declaration that these provisions are unconstitutional

Initially, the district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue but dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Western District of Louisiana unanimously ruled to reverse the lower court decision and remand the case for further action. 

The Fifth Circuit Court scrutinized the historical evidence regarding the regulation of firearms among eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds at the time of the nation’s founding. The appeal court found prior judicial interpretations, (like the NRA I decision which upheld similar age-based restrictions,) incompatible with recent Supreme Court decisions that emphasize a historical understanding of gun rights, such as Bruen and Rahimi.

A positive decision in this case would directly affect only the U S 5th Circuit (which encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) but would be a good start in total repeal of these laws.

In the case, U.S. v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction of a man under a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by one who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” (The substance in question was marijuana.)   

Police officers legally searched Patrick Daniels Jr’s car and found marijuana and 2 loaded firearms.  Daniels waived his Miranda rights and admitted he had been a regular marijuana user since high school, smoking the drug “approximately fourteen days out of a month.” Importantly, the agents did NOT ascertain or render an opinion as to whether Daniels was under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest.

Daniels was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison.

Daniels appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which ordered the Fifth Circuit to rehear Daniels’s case in light of the high court’s opinion in U.S. v. Rahimi. 

Fifth Circuit then found that applying 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(3) to his case violated the Second Amendment.  The Fifth Circuit determined that:

922(g)(3) was not per se unconstitutional and allowed the statute itself to stand.

922 (g)(3) could be validly applied where the accused was determined to be actively impaired by illegal drug use at the time of the firearm possession.  

922 (g)(3) could NOT be constitutionally applied “where it seeks to disarm an individual solely ‘based on habitual or occasional drug use.’” 

922(g)(3) might be applicable where the illegal drug use was so regular and heavy that it rendered the person “continually impaired,” even when not acutely intoxicated.

Habitual or occasional drug use has no historical basis under the Second Amendment as grounds for a lifetime firearm prohibition.

RIFLE, the ATF, Suppressors and Lead Ammo

Representative Tracey Mann (R-KS) is introducing legislation to put the ATF’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL’s) in check.  The legislation is titled the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act.

The RIFLE Act:

• ensures that the ATF gives FFLs a chance to comply before ATF moves to revoke a license,

• clearly defines and strengthens what constitutes a willful violation, imposing a presumption that there is no willful violation absent clear and convincing evidence,

• allows FFLs to review and appeal ATF determinations before an administrative law judge,

• reimburses FFLs for legal fees incurred while the ‘zero tolerance’ policy is in effect,

• automatically reinstates and approves licenses suspended, revoked, or denied while ATF’s zero tolerance policy is in effect,

• reimburses FFLs who were victims of the ATF’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy.

According to Mann’s office, in 2024 alone, ATF saw the highest levels of gun store license revocations in 20 years, which was the third consecutive year of increased license revocations under President Biden. The Biden Administration recently claimed it reversed its Zero Tolerance policy but it appears to remain fully in effect.

Representative Mann told Breitbart News, President Biden’s zero tolerance policy undermined the Second Amendment and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney is one of the bill’s cosponsors.

But don’t get too excited…

Steve Dettelbach is out as the head of ATF and Deputy Director Marvin Richardson will return as the default head of the embattled agency.

Ammolandreports: “Richardson was the driving force behind the ATF’s war on pistol braces and privately manufactured firearms…Even though Richardson was only an acting assistant director at the time, pushing to go after braces was his idea.”

The pistol brace rule was defeated in multiple courts, but the ATF recently asserted that braced pistols still need to be registered with the NFA and that the owners still must pay $200 for a tax stamp. The ATF then reluctantly backed down under threat of further legal action.

Dettelbach is a prime example of the Swamp denizens that believe they – and not Congress – make the laws. 

President Trump cannot appoint a new ATF Director fast enough!

More about Silencers / Suppressors.

Last week, SCOPE reported that the Hearing Protection Act was being introduced in Congress; it would remove suppressors from the burdensome requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The bill demands the destruction of all current NFA registration records of silencers/gun mufflers within 365 days of the Act’s enactment.

It’s reported that there are some complicated provisions that are intended to deal with the various state laws concerning suppressors.

In addition, it is unclear how the eight states that currently ban ownership of silencers / suppressors would fare under this bill. (NY is one of the eight states.) 

In addition, Illinois’ ban on ownership is being challenged in federal court in Illinois.

The text of the Hearing Protection Act has not been officially entered into the House of Representatives as of this writing, 

New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney is also one of this bill’s cosponsors.

Back to lead ammo…

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Final Rule published in 2023 opened hunting and fishing opportunities on eight National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs),

but

banned the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

Representative Rob Wittman’s (R-Va.) introduced H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, which would prohibit USFWS, the Bureau of Land Management  and the U.S. Forest Service from banning the use of traditional lead ammunition and tackle unless they have approval by the applicable state fish and wildlife department and proof that lead ammunition and tackle is primarily causing wildlife population decline.

Many argue that there is no scientific evidence that lead ammo is detrimental to wildlife.  This law would require scientific evidence to back up any lead ammo bans.