The Ninth  Surprises

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the ‘Left Coast’ and is the most far left federal appeals court.  (Any further left and you will get your feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.)

So, when it gave 2A advocates a huge win, that was a surprise.  In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel approved a permanent injunction delivered by a U.S. District Court judge, early last year.  It concluded that the California law on Background check requirement on sales of ammunition (and prohibiting residents from ordering ammunition online or bringing ammunition purchased out-of-state back into California)  is facially unconstitutional, meaning there's no circumstance where it can be lawfully applied.

The Ninth’s opinion stated that the law: "meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms."

Some highlights of the decision (which look a lot like Kathy Hochul’s and Letitia James’ efforts in NY State.)

California’s ammunition background check regime regulates all ammunition acquisitions by California residents; the regime applies not only to every transaction in California but also to ammunition purchases by California residents outside the state.

It requires California residents to pay for and complete an in-person background check before each ammunition acquisition.

A California resident may be required to purchase ammunition during a specified period of time—e.g., 18 hours—after passing a background check.

Though not all the rules comprising California’s ammunition background check regime impose delays on their face, they do not require California to approve checks within a certain timeframe.  (Emphasis added.)

The regime applies to all types of ammunition, and California residents cannot avoid the background check requirements by taking advantage of internet or out-of-state sales. Rather, out-of-state purchases are subject to additional delays and fees.

Given the fees and delays associated with California’s ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, the regime meaningfully constrains California residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Thus, it is not a “presumptively lawful regulatory measure.”

Appeals court decisions only are binding in the appeals court’s district which is, in this case, the left coast.

New York is trying many of the same things that California was doing in the above law.  Let’s hope that liberal New York courts also surprise us and outlaw many of the same laws.

And at the federal level, in another issue:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. At issue are federal laws that ban licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to buyers who live in another state. Under current law, it is illegal for federally licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to individuals who reside in a different state, even if the buyer is fully eligible to possess firearms and passes a background check. Instead, buyers must arrange for the handgun to be shipped to a dealer in their home state, incurring additional fees and delays.

In a similar case, the federal ban was struck down by a district court but that decision was reversed by an appeals court.  However, this happened before the decision in NYS Rifle & Pistol v Bruen, which is the basis for this reconsideration. 

Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, courts are required to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.  The plaintiffs wrote: “The Government does not cite a single law that burdened the right of peaceable citizens to acquire arms in another state or colony in any way like the laws at issue here.”

As SCOPE recently wrote, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has been refusing to defend some anti-2A cases that the Biden DOJ would pursue to the bitter end.  Will the Trump DOJ decide to not defend this law and let a summary judgement against the law be imposed?  Let’s hope so.

Vintage Firearms Update

SCOPE President John Elwood received a text message from Robert Donald, former owner of Vintage Firearms.  He is the subject of a lawsuit to which, as you may recall, SCOPE donated money.  The lawsuit stemmed from the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York in 2022.  Vintage Firearms was one of several being sued by the families.  

Below is the text message Elwood received from Robert Donald.

On July 15, 2025, I sat down with 10 lawyers present and 17 on video conference for approximately 6 hours and answered questions concerning the legal sale of a rifle to Payton Gendron and later used in the horrific Tops Supermarket shooting in Buffalo, NY, in May of 2022.  The opposing lawyers were very professional, but almost all the questions were designed to make it appear I did something wrong.  I was truthful to the best of my recollection and did my best to answer their questions.  It was my first deposition and hopefully my last.  6 hours of answering questions is not easy and I was glad when it was over.

My attorneys will now proceed with a motion for summary judgement and a dismissal of the lawsuit as frivolous and unwarranted.  In my opinion, and many others, the legal system should never have let these actions against Vintage Firearms LLC proceed.  Vintage is still standing strong to protect your and future generations' right to own and possess firearms.

Elwood asked Mr. Donald to keep SCOPE informed on the status of his case.  This is one case where SCOPE is making a difference. 

 Thank you for your hard work in protecting, restoring, and expanding the Second Amendment for all NY State citizens.  

Trump Administration and 2A

In the upcoming Firing Lines, we discuss Trump and the 2nd Amendment.  Since our cut off for its publication, more has happened.

Usually, the Department of Justice (DOJ) leans toward enforcement and regulation. It’s rare for the DOJ to support rolling back gun control but the Trump administration is doing just that.

In 2021, the Biden administration promulgated a rule through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) setting forth a framework for determining whether pistols equipped with stabilizing braces are considered “short-barreled rifles” and subject to a tax and registration requirements under the 1934 National Firearms Act.  That rule went into effect in 2023 and pistol braces were reclassified as short barreled rifles and a $200 tax and registration requirement were imposed on the estimated 40 million braces in circulation.  Non-compliance meant potential felony charges carrying up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

2A advocacy groups argued that the pistols constitute protected arms.

There were many cases challenging the ATF rule and two appeals courts found against the ATF despite the continuing efforts of the Biden administration.

It was recently announced that the Trump (DOJ) has formally ended its defense of that directive.  (By the way, 40 million pistol braces would seem to qualify as ”in common use.”)

In a case involving state laws:

In July, Trump’s DOJ filed a legal brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and strike down sweeping state-level firearm restrictions, in several states.  A 2A win at the Supreme Court level would likely strike down several major gun laws and force states to rethink their entire approach to firearms regulation.  Such a decision could create a national standard that constitutional rights can’t ‘get the run around’ by state-level lawmakers.

The DOJ’s brief targets Hawaii’s law that bars people from carrying firearms on private property unless there’s a visible sign allowing it; lawful carry is a crime unless a property owner explicitly says otherwise. Since most businesses don’t post any signs at all, this creates a “near-complete ban on public carry.”  (SCOPE members will remember that New York State’s ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ also did this.) 

The DOJ is using the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision (Bruen) as the foundation for its brief; modern gun laws must align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation in America. The DOJ argues that bans on magazine sizes, carry restrictions, age limits, and licensing schemes do not meet this historical test.  (Again, NYS is a constitutional failure.)

This puts the DOJ on the side of gun owners. The DOJ brief states that the United States “has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In another case, a lower court struck down handgun purchase bans for 18-to-20-year-olds. The court cited the Bruen standard and found the age-based ban unconstitutional

Trump’s DOJ chose not to appeal that decision

This change in attitude at the federal level is important in another sense. 

Previously, NY State lawmakers ignored the U S Constitution when passing laws attacking 2A.  There attitude was ‘sue us.’  Private citizens had to sue the state using private citizen funding while the state used ’house money’ (the taxpayers seemingly bottomless pockets.)  If the state lost at one level, they just appealed to the next level, costing the citizen hundreds of thousands of dollars.  NY’s strategy was to physically, mentally - and most importantly - monetarily exhaust the NY citizen.

With the federal government taking the lead, the feds have a bigger pocket of ‘house money’ and they can afford to challenge the states, where private citizens had to do it in the past.

Of course, it’s the taxpayers’ state money versus the taxpayers’ federal money, but NY State no longer holds the money cards.

Trump and 2A

After four and a half years of Trump being President, has Donald Trump been good or bad for the 2nd Amendment?

He has said the right things, loudly and clearly, but actions speak louder than words.  Let’s look at his actions.

Good stuff.

During COVID many ‘blue states’ declared gun stores and ranges as “non-essential” and closed them.  Trump declared firearms retailers, manufacturers, and ranges as essential critical infrastructure, keeping them open.

In his first term, Trump directed agencies to eliminate regulations that infringed on 2A.  Following up on that, on February 7, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order that: ‘will halt existing policies designed to curtail the clear right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.’

In July 2025, Trump’s Department of Justice proposed a new rule that could grant gun rights to potentially thousands of Americans who are currently barred from owning firearms.  The proposed rule would create a pathway for individuals with criminal convictions to have their gun rights restored, with final discretion left to the attorney general on a case-by-case basis.

In his first term, Trump signed the Fix NICS Act.  It required federal agencies to upload more disqualifying records, like mental health adjudications and domestic violence convictions.  This helped ensure that prohibited folks couldn’t slip through the cracks. Also – and very importantly - it didn’t create any new restrictions on law-abiding owners.

In Trump’s first term, 234 federal judges were confirmed, including 54 to the appellate courts and three Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.  These were solidly 2A judges and the monumental Supreme Court decision in ‘Bruen’ (and other follow up decisions) were made possible by these appointments.  These are his longest lasting, pro 2A achievements.

On the negative side, there are some specific issues that some 2A advocates dislike.

After the Parkland shooting in 2018, Trump suggested Red Flag laws could help address mental health threats. But it was just a comment.  No federal Red Flag law was enacted.

Under Trump, after the Las Vegas shooting in 2018, the ATF issued a rule that reclassified bump stocks as machine guns. However, this was a strategic move by Trump to head off Congress from rushing through more sweeping legislation that would have certainly impacted and perhaps outlawed semi-automatic rifles. And in 2024, the Supreme Court, led by the Trump-appointed justices, overturned that bump stock ban.

Good or bad.  Too early to tell

In May, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) leaked that it is moving forward with plans to merge the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  It is expected to be proposed as part of the White House's full fiscal year 2026 budget. The proposal requires congressional approval.

In addition, since Trump was inaugurated on January 20th, there have been stories of cuts of between 500 and 1,800 ATF employees.  However, some or all of these cuts may be transfers in the above reorganization.

Some argue that this merger will result in more resources available to the ATF

The ATF does serve a purpose but it was used by the Biden administration (and could be used again by future left-wing administrations) as ‘lawfare’ against FFL’s and gun owners.

One other thing

If one searches the NY legislature for proposed bills covering guns or firearms, you will find more than 70 bills and most are anti-2A proposals.

When last we looked, if you also search the federal Congress for proposed bills covering guns or firearms, you will find very few and most are pro-2A.

NYS is dominated by anti-2A Democrats while Congress has a slim majority of Republicans and most of the latter will defend 2A.  Trump has been very clear he would veto anti-2A bills.  Certainly, he deserves some credit for discouraging the anti-2A folks and the dramatic difference between the NY legislature and Congress.

Legal Updates

Every month, Schuyler County publishes Legal Updates.  The following are some 2nd Amendment highlights for June and July.

New York state budget creates Office of Gun Violence Prevention

The enacted state budget for fiscal year 2025 creates a formal New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention to consolidate gun control efforts. OGVP will be part of the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the agency that oversees law-enforcement training and data collection.

The budget bills specifically earmark just under $60 million that’s new:

• $2.5 million for the OGVP

• $7.2 million for community-based gun- and domestic-violence prevention programs

• $40 million for police and legal costs to better enforce Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or “red flag” laws

$10 million in competitive grants to local community groups like the Greater Direction mentorship programs in Buffalo

Republican legislators far and wide have decried most of the budget for being too expensive and ignoring effective solutions to violent crime.

New Mandatory Insurance Law Could Lead to Civilian Disarmament

A new bill in New York State, known as Senate Bill S5974, could force all gun owners to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. Sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker, this proposal isn’t just aimed at new buyers – anyone who already owns a gun would also be required to comply.

According to the bill, insurance must be purchased before someone can legally possess a firearm, and it must be maintained continuously. If you lose your coverage, you lose your legal right to own the gun. That’s not a suggestion – it’s automatic revocation.

The insurance requirement in the bill specifically covers damages from negligent acts involving firearms. In simple terms, if you accidentally fire your weapon and someone is hurt or property is damaged, the insurance is supposed to help cover those costs. However, if the firearm is used in self-defense, which is considered an intentional act, most general liability policies wouldn’t pay out.

As William Kirk of Washington Gun Law explained, “Insurance is only going to cover you for negligent activity at best.” That means people using guns legally in defense won’t even benefit from this requirement.

Kirk points out that the kind of insurance this bill demands doesn’t actually exist in most markets. If your insurance lapses, your registration and permits are automatically void. That gives the state the power to confiscate your guns, without any new due process. “They’ve created essentially a domino effect,” Kirk said. “Cancel the insurance, cancel the permit, then confiscate the firearms.”

That’s a serious escalation, and it shows how financial requirements can be turned into legal weapons.

One of the more overlooked aspects is how this could disproportionately hurt working-class Americans. It sets up a financial barrier that many can’t afford, especially in cities where gun ownership is already hard to navigate. This could become a form of economic discrimination that punishes the poor.

As Kirk said, “This is a law that’s really just designed to throw up yet another barrier… to access what is supposed to be an inalienable right.” If it passes, expect other states to follow. If it fails, expect it to come back next year, just like it has every year since 2013. Either way, it’s clear the battle over civilian gun rights is moving into the realm of insurance, and that should concern every American who values their freedom.

Citi Ends Political De-Banking Policy, Rescinds Requirement for Clients to Restrict Gun Sales

Financial services company Citi is walking back its political de-banking policy and its requirement for retail clients to restrict gun sales, making it the latest large corporation to distance itself from progressive corporate governance.

Citi announced the changes …after examining its corporate policies in light of shifts to the regulatory climate and President Trump’s executive orders.

Citi’s rescinded policies are both part of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement in corporate America that seeks to use corporations as vehicles for progressive goals.

 Conservatives have raised the alarm about financial companies “de-banking” right-wing clients and denying them access to services because of political orientation. The practice has mostly impacted right-wing extremists, but it has spilled out into industries disfavored by the left and other conservative institutions. Republican lawmakers have also raised the alarm about cases of debanking involving gun dealerships and religiously affiliated institutions.

 Schuyler Co. Legal Updates

Borrello calls on gun owners to create grassroots movement to protect 2nd Amendment (an article from The Batavian on July 9th  by Howard B. Owens)

Sen. George Borrello advocated for grassroots unity and active voter engagement as key ingredients for defending Second Amendment rights in New York during his address to Genesee County SCOPE on Tuesday at the Coon Hunters Association clubhouse on Hopkins Road in Batavia.

Borrello highlighted a recent legal victory against New York’s Department of Health over Rule 213, which he said would have allowed public health officials to detain individuals suspected of carrying communicable diseases without proof or due process. He emphasized that sustained community action was essential to overturning the rule.

He pointed to ongoing challenges, including what he described as incremental restrictions on gun ownership in New York State. 

Borrello said, “When it comes to our Second Amendment rights, if they could just outlaw guns in New York State, they would, but they know that even for them, that’s a bridge too far, especially now with the Supreme Court the United States that we have, so instead, it’s death by a 1,000 cuts, right? They want to make it very difficult and very expensive for you to own a gun and to exercise your Second Amendment rights in New York State.”

Borrello called for a coordinated effort to register and mobilize gun owners and non-affiliated voters, noting that many remain unregistered. 

“If we could get half of the gun owners in New York state who are not registered to vote and to vote the right way, we would have Lee Zeldin as governor,” he said.

Borrello concluded by urging attendees to remain engaged and to help identify key districts where potential Republican gains could be made. He stressed that the path forward depends on voter turnout and collective resolve.

“It has to be an effort on everyone’s part to get out and do it," Borrello said. "If you want to stop complaining about stuff, then start doing something about it. It’s about getting those people out, registering to vote and getting them to the polls. It can be done. It has been done in the past in the state. I’m not one of those guys who says, 'You know what? It’s hopeless. I’m leaving.' I don’t want to go to Florida. I love it here. My family’s here. My businesses are here. My wife and I have a restaurant business, and I want to stay here, and I want to fight to make New York what it used to be.

If you, or anyone you know, would like to place an ad in the 2025 SCOPE banquet program, please find all of the details below. You can also print a .pdf copy of the Ad Rate Sheet

Donate Here

A Shot Heard Around the World 

In the 1600s and 1700s, Europeans came to North America looking for religious freedom, economic opportunities, and political liberty.  The first permanent English settlement was established in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 with a population of 104. By 1776, the English-speaking population in North America grew to approximately 2.5 million.  For 169 years, from 1607 – 1776, people in North America were governed by the English monarchy. 

By 1776, the British Empire controlled significant parts of the world, including large swathes of North America, parts of the Caribbean, and territories in Asia and Africa.  Britain was a major global power with extensive trade networks and a powerful navy.  At the start of the American Revolution, the British navy consisted of over 270 ships of various sizes including powerful ships-of-the-line, smaller sloops, and various other vessels.  By the end of the war, the British navy had grown to nearly 500 ships.   

There were many reasons why people left England, dared the dangerous Atlantic crossing to North America, and endured the many hardships once in North America. Many early settlers, like the pilgrims, left England to escape religious persecution by the Church of England.  The Industrial Revolution led to widespread poverty and unemployment in Britain, making the prospect of a new life with economic opportunities in America very appealing. Some sought more control over their own governance and felt they were being taxed without representation.  The colonies offered a chance for social advancement, with less emphasis on rigid class structures than in Europe. 

The first shots of the American Revolutionary War (American War of Independence) were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775.  Significant battles during the American Revolutionary War included Siege of Boston (1775-1776 when the Continental Army surrounded Boston, leading to eventual British evacuation, Battles of Saratoga (September-October 1777) which convinced France to support America, Battle of Trenton (December 26, 1776), Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781), and the Siege of Yorktown (September-October 1781).

During the American Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, five years before the victory at Yorktown and eight years before the Treaty of Paris was signed, officially ending the American Revolutionary War.  America was founded on an EXCEPTIONAL idea, rooted in the belief that the United States was founded on an idea, an idea of liberty, individualism, and democracy. 

The Declaration of Independence announced the separation of the 13 colonies from Britain, and it contains several important concepts including that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.  A new nation was born.  

Today, we honor the signing of our Declaration of Independence – a moment that gave birth to the idea of freedom from tyranny.  It’s a time to reflect on the profound significance of that vision and the ongoing sacrifices required to preserve it.  A vital part of that effort is patriots like you who stand up to protect and defend the Second Amendment, a significant part of the Constitution of the United States.

Life can be hectic, and I truly understand how valuable your time is.  From the bottom of my heart, thank you for supporting SCOPE and its mission.  I wish you, your family, and your friends a joyful and safe Fourth of July 2025. 

With All Honor and Respect,

John R. Elwood

A Perfect World in N.Y. City

Fascists, Socialists and Communists have many things in common and one of them is removing all guns from their people; only Hitler, Stalin and Mao and their supporters had firearms in their perfect world. 

Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democrat nominee for mayor of N.Y. City describes himself as a Democrat Socialist while President Trump labels him a Communist.  Mamdani also wants NY City to be a perfect world and he wrote in a May 24, 2022 tweet, “We need to ban all guns.”    

New York City is noted for its slooowww pace in approving pistol permits.  Many would not believe it could get slower.  Guess again.

On the other hand, some of Zohran Mamdani’s programs would seem to say New Yorkers will need more guns.  Let’s explore some quotes from Mamdani which would seem to support the idea that more guns will be needed.

Did you think ‘Defund the Police’ was dead?  Think again.

Per Mamdani: Queer liberation means defund the police. We don't need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety.  What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD.  NO to fake cuts – defund the police. 

And apparently the key to reducing crime is keeping criminals out of jail.

Per Mamdani: We will support existing decarceral legislation that will:

End cash bail

Decriminalize sex work
Legalize marijuana
Permit safe injection sites
        mandatory licensing of semiautomatic rifles;
        banning civilian purchase of body armor
        restrictions on gun dealer advertising and required warning signage in                    retail stores.
        expanding New York’s “Red Flag” laws;
        forced disclosure of social media accounts for concealed carry applicants.

He wants to empty jails because: "Violence is an artificial construct."

Per Mamdani: “conflating (sex) trafficking with consensual sex work won't help anyone.  DA Katz must listen to sex workers & their demand for full #decrim.

But if you happen to be one of the criminals ‘victimized’ by being put in jail, your life will get easier.

Per Mamdani: Restrict solitary confinement; Enact elder parole; Re-enfranchise incarcerated Nyers; Make all calls and emails to and from people incarcerated in state jails and prisons free.

In Mamdani’s N Y City, when you are in danger, a social worker will be minutes away.

Per Mamdani’s campaign web site: …centralize, expand, and invest in community-based violence intervention programs through the Crisis Management System, including gun violence interrupters…deploying teams of violence interrupters to respond immediately to instances of gun violence.

He wants to emulate a Richmond California program that… deploys trained outreach workers to people identified as active firearm offenders.  (Emphasis added),

Crime in the transit system?

Mamdani’s web site calls it “A Critical Place for Intervention” and, instead of more cops, his web site says he will be: “Creating dedicated outreach workers in our subway stations.”

History is a prelude to the future.  Here is how Mamdani voted as a N.Y. Assemblyman (via VoteSmart):

Voted for:

Supported:

Decide for yourself.  Will Mamdani’s gun free New York City be a place where guns are not needed for personal defense or will guns be even more of a necessity?

And since N Y City is the ‘1,000 pound gorilla’ in the N Y legislatures, expect a spill over into the rest of N Y State.  Especially in the area of financing all these ‘progressive’ programs.

The Good the Bad and the Dumb

Originally, the U.S. Senate version of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ (BBB) completely removed suppressors and short-barrel rifles from both NFA taxation and required registration.  But the Senate’s parliamentarian rejected the inclusion of that specific language on a technical reason.

The GOP-controlled Senate then added language to Trump’s BBB reducing the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barrel firearms to zero ($0).   

Although the tax is removed, NFA registration is still required.

The Senate voted to advance President Trump's BBB and start debate on the sweeping tax and immigration package.  In a 51 to 49 vote, all but two Republicans voted to advance the bill and all Democrats voted against it. 

Not a big deal in NY State, since NY is one of only eight states where suppressors are still illegal.  But a nice win for the 2nd Amendment - if it stays in the bill’s final version and is enacted into law.

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Early in June, California’s State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1127, supported entirely by Democrats and opposed by nearly all Republicans.  It is a gun control measure aimed at outlawing firearms that can be easily converted into machine guns.  It targets the exact technical features that define pistols like Glock handguns. The bill’s language is so technical and specific that it’s no accident that the law aims to ban what may be the most popular handguns sold in America.

Easily converted means “readily converted by hand or with household tools” into a fully automatic weapon because of what the sponsors label a “dangerous design flaw” that gun manufacturers have known about for decades and done nothing to stop it.

However, Alisha Curtin, co-host of Gun Owners Radio revealed Glock already took steps to prevent future conversions in their newer pistol designs. 

Curtin also notes that the bill introduces an entirely new term: “machine gun convertible pistol.”  AB1127 makes it sound like converting a Glock to full-auto is as simple as replacing a battery, when in reality it requires a mix of illegal tools, know-how, and intent.”

This is pushing California towards a total ban of Glock pistols.

In response to the BBB easing laws on suppressors, some of the anti-2A U.S. Senators displayed their lack of factual knowledge about suppressors.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted to X, “A hidden provision of the bill…wait for it…legalizes gun silencers!! What?? So now criminals will be able to hide their crimes and police will lose the ability to respond to mass shootings.”

Then Murphy added, “Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can’t hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don’t flee when the shooting begins.”

Not to be undone in a race to the bottom, our own less than beloved Senator Chuck Schumer said, “The only people who want silencers are criminals because they don’t want people to hear their bad, horrible, deadly deeds.”

Of course, these Senators must be correct since in the movies the suppressed guns only go poof.  But in the non-cinematic world, suppressors/silencers lower the decibel level of guns, but do not make them silent. They can still be heard and most are not hearing safe even at the lower decibel levels. 

And in another approach, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) claimed that suppressors would effectively negate “ShotSpotter” gunfire detection systems used by law enforcement in cities to triangulate gunfire for responding police.

“These silencers circumvent that system.  That system will no longer be effective when a gunman has a silencer.”

SoundThinking is the company that owns ShotSpotter and their fact sheet says,

“The ShotSpotter sensors are designed to pick up the sound of gunfire from suppressors…”

One has to wonder if these politicians are that uninformed or if they are just liars?